the treacle does not spiel steeple.
sent1: if the dottle is both not amylolytic and frail the treacle does not spiel steeple. sent2: if the hillbilly is non-celiac a fiberscope then the dottle is not a fiberscope. sent3: the hillbilly is not celiac but it is a fiberscope. sent4: the dottle is a fiberscope if the fact that it is non-amylolytic thing that is frail is wrong. sent5: if the dottle is amylolytic and it is a kind of a frail then that the treacle does not spiel steeple is correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the dottle is a kind of non-amylolytic a frail is incorrect.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the dottle is a fiberscope.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the dottle is not a kind of a fiberscope.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the dottle is not amylolytic but a frail.; int4 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the treacle does not spiel steeple. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dottle is both not amylolytic and frail the treacle does not spiel steeple. sent2: if the hillbilly is non-celiac a fiberscope then the dottle is not a fiberscope. sent3: the hillbilly is not celiac but it is a fiberscope. sent4: the dottle is a fiberscope if the fact that it is non-amylolytic thing that is frail is wrong. sent5: if the dottle is amylolytic and it is a kind of a frail then that the treacle does not spiel steeple is correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the dottle is a kind of non-amylolytic a frail is incorrect.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the dottle is a fiberscope.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the dottle is not a kind of a fiberscope.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the dottle is not amylolytic but a frail.; int4 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__