the transept is an insurgency.
sent1: the fact that the ass splays stemmatology and it is a sulfapyridine does not hold if it is not acetonic. sent2: if something is not an insurgency then the fact that it is a oxime and it does not spray fine does not hold. sent3: if that something is postprandial and is not a sulfapyridine is wrong the fact that it does not splay stemmatology is not false. sent4: the glossy does not communicate dissolve. sent5: there exists something such that that that it is postprandial and it is inhumane is correct is not right. sent6: that something is a oxime that is not a kind of a sulfapyridine is correct. sent7: the fact that the transept is a oxime and it does spray fine does not hold. sent8: the ascidian is postprandial but it is not a kind of a sulfapyridine if there exists something such that it is inhumane. sent9: if the ascidian is postprandial but not a sulfapyridine then the ass does not splay stemmatology. sent10: the fact that the transept does spray fine but it is not a sulfapyridine is not true if it is not postprandial. sent11: the ascidian is not a kind of a oxime if the transept is postprandial and does not spray fine. sent12: a acetonic thing splays stemmatology. sent13: the glossy is inhumane. sent14: that the ascidian is not a sulfapyridine is not wrong if something is inhumane. sent15: the ass does not spray fine if there exists something such that that it splays stemmatology is correct. sent16: the ass is not non-acetonic if there exists something such that the fact that it is a oxime and it does not spray fine does not hold. sent17: the fact that the glossy does not splay stemmatology is not incorrect. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it sprays fine and it is not postprandial is false.
sent2 -> int1: the fact that the transept is a oxime but it does not spray fine is not right if it is not an insurgency.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the transept is not an insurgency.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the transept is a oxime that does not spray fine is incorrect.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a oxime that does not spray fine is not true.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the fact that the ass is not non-acetonic is not false.; sent12 -> int5: the fact that the ass does splay stemmatology hold if it is acetonic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the ass splays stemmatology.; sent13 -> int7: there exists something such that it is inhumane.; int7 & sent8 -> int8: the ascidian is postprandial and is not a kind of a sulfapyridine.; sent9 & int8 -> int9: the ass does not splay stemmatology.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis;
the transept is not an insurgency.
sent3 -> int11: if the fact that the ascidian is postprandial but it is not a sulfapyridine is not right then it does not splay stemmatology.;
$hypothesis$ = the transept is an insurgency. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the ass splays stemmatology and it is a sulfapyridine does not hold if it is not acetonic. sent2: if something is not an insurgency then the fact that it is a oxime and it does not spray fine does not hold. sent3: if that something is postprandial and is not a sulfapyridine is wrong the fact that it does not splay stemmatology is not false. sent4: the glossy does not communicate dissolve. sent5: there exists something such that that that it is postprandial and it is inhumane is correct is not right. sent6: that something is a oxime that is not a kind of a sulfapyridine is correct. sent7: the fact that the transept is a oxime and it does spray fine does not hold. sent8: the ascidian is postprandial but it is not a kind of a sulfapyridine if there exists something such that it is inhumane. sent9: if the ascidian is postprandial but not a sulfapyridine then the ass does not splay stemmatology. sent10: the fact that the transept does spray fine but it is not a sulfapyridine is not true if it is not postprandial. sent11: the ascidian is not a kind of a oxime if the transept is postprandial and does not spray fine. sent12: a acetonic thing splays stemmatology. sent13: the glossy is inhumane. sent14: that the ascidian is not a sulfapyridine is not wrong if something is inhumane. sent15: the ass does not spray fine if there exists something such that that it splays stemmatology is correct. sent16: the ass is not non-acetonic if there exists something such that the fact that it is a oxime and it does not spray fine does not hold. sent17: the fact that the glossy does not splay stemmatology is not incorrect. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it sprays fine and it is not postprandial is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: the fact that the transept is a oxime but it does not spray fine is not right if it is not an insurgency.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the transept is not an insurgency.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the transept is a oxime that does not spray fine is incorrect.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a oxime that does not spray fine is not true.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the fact that the ass is not non-acetonic is not false.; sent12 -> int5: the fact that the ass does splay stemmatology hold if it is acetonic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the ass splays stemmatology.; sent13 -> int7: there exists something such that it is inhumane.; int7 & sent8 -> int8: the ascidian is postprandial and is not a kind of a sulfapyridine.; sent9 & int8 -> int9: the ass does not splay stemmatology.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__