the plowshare expenses nullity.
sent1: there exists something such that it is milch. sent2: the fact that the plowshare does not expense nullity hold if the fact that the fieldwork does not expense nullity is not false. sent3: there exists something such that it is milch and it is a kind of a duplication. sent4: the fieldwork concerns blasphemy if something does expense outrider. sent5: if that the click does not reopen Panax and expenses outrider is incorrect the fact that the cinnabar does not expenses outrider hold. sent6: if the fieldwork is antecedent the cinnabar is a kind of a duplication. sent7: the fieldwork does not expense nullity if the fact that the cinnabar does not expense nullity and it is not a duplication is not false. sent8: something is not a kind of an antecedent. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not non-milch and is a kind of a duplication does not hold. sent10: that the click does not reopen Panax is not false. sent11: the barrenwort does not expense nullity if the fieldwork is not antecedent and/or it does expense nullity. sent12: the plowshare is an antecedent. sent13: there is something such that it does concern blasphemy. sent14: the click expenses outrider and does not reopen Panax. sent15: the fieldwork does not reopen Panax. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is milch and it is a duplication is correct is not correct the cinnabar is not a kind of a duplication. sent17: the plowshare does expense nullity if a non-antecedent thing concerns blasphemy. sent18: the plowshare is an antecedent if something that does not expense nullity does concern blasphemy. sent19: the cinnabar is not a duplication if something is not milch. sent20: the plowshare is a kind of a duplication. sent21: there is something such that it is both not a castle and a polyelectrolyte. sent22: the sorcerer is a duplication. sent23: something is a kind of an antecedent that concerns blasphemy.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fieldwork is an antecedent.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the cinnabar is a kind of a duplication.; sent9 & sent16 -> int2: the cinnabar is not a duplication.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the fieldwork is not a kind of an antecedent is not incorrect.; sent14 -> int5: the click does expense outrider.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does expense outrider.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the fieldwork concerns blasphemy.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the fieldwork is non-antecedent thing that does concern blasphemy.; int8 -> int9: something is not a kind of an antecedent and does concern blasphemy.; int9 & sent17 -> hypothesis;
the barrenwort does not expense nullity.
$hypothesis$ = the plowshare expenses nullity. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is milch. sent2: the fact that the plowshare does not expense nullity hold if the fact that the fieldwork does not expense nullity is not false. sent3: there exists something such that it is milch and it is a kind of a duplication. sent4: the fieldwork concerns blasphemy if something does expense outrider. sent5: if that the click does not reopen Panax and expenses outrider is incorrect the fact that the cinnabar does not expenses outrider hold. sent6: if the fieldwork is antecedent the cinnabar is a kind of a duplication. sent7: the fieldwork does not expense nullity if the fact that the cinnabar does not expense nullity and it is not a duplication is not false. sent8: something is not a kind of an antecedent. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is not non-milch and is a kind of a duplication does not hold. sent10: that the click does not reopen Panax is not false. sent11: the barrenwort does not expense nullity if the fieldwork is not antecedent and/or it does expense nullity. sent12: the plowshare is an antecedent. sent13: there is something such that it does concern blasphemy. sent14: the click expenses outrider and does not reopen Panax. sent15: the fieldwork does not reopen Panax. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it is milch and it is a duplication is correct is not correct the cinnabar is not a kind of a duplication. sent17: the plowshare does expense nullity if a non-antecedent thing concerns blasphemy. sent18: the plowshare is an antecedent if something that does not expense nullity does concern blasphemy. sent19: the cinnabar is not a duplication if something is not milch. sent20: the plowshare is a kind of a duplication. sent21: there is something such that it is both not a castle and a polyelectrolyte. sent22: the sorcerer is a duplication. sent23: something is a kind of an antecedent that concerns blasphemy. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fieldwork is an antecedent.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the cinnabar is a kind of a duplication.; sent9 & sent16 -> int2: the cinnabar is not a duplication.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the fieldwork is not a kind of an antecedent is not incorrect.; sent14 -> int5: the click does expense outrider.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does expense outrider.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the fieldwork concerns blasphemy.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the fieldwork is non-antecedent thing that does concern blasphemy.; int8 -> int9: something is not a kind of an antecedent and does concern blasphemy.; int9 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__