if the fact that the alphabetizer is a kind of a stenography hold the fact that the taproot flays and does not permit outboard is wrong.
sent1: if the blowjob flays then the fact that the taproot flays but it does not permit outboard is false. sent2: the papillon is a bookbindery and is not tensional. sent3: if something is a Doliolidae then the fact that it is not a Canterbury is not wrong. sent4: the blowjob is irresponsible thing that is not a Pentecost. sent5: if the blowjob does not look Humulus then the fact that that the alphabetizer is gaseous and is not a kind of a Doliolidae hold is not correct. sent6: the blowjob does not look Humulus if it is irresponsible and not a Pentecost. sent7: that something permits outboard is not false if it is not eukaryotic and not heraldic. sent8: if there exists something such that it does permit outboard the fact that the fact that the illustration is not a kind of a clef and is not a stenography is wrong hold. sent9: the fact that the taproot flays and it permits outboard is incorrect. sent10: that the alphabetizer is not a stenography is not false if that that the illustration is not unprovocative but it is a bookbindery does not hold hold. sent11: something does flay if that it is not a clef and is not a stenography does not hold. sent12: the blowjob does flay if the illustration is provocative a bookbindery. sent13: something that is not a Canterbury is both not eukaryotic and not heraldic. sent14: the herm is not unprovocative if the illustration does flay. sent15: that something is a kind of a Doliolidae if the fact that it is gaseous and it is not a Doliolidae is not correct is true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the alphabetizer is a kind of a stenography.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the illustration is not unprovocative and is a bookbindery does not hold.; sent10 & assump2 -> int1: the alphabetizer is not a stenography.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the illustration is not unprovocative but it is a bookbindery.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the blowjob does flay.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the taproot does flay but it does not permit outboard is incorrect.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the herm is not unprovocative.
sent11 -> int6: if the fact that the illustration is not a clef and it is not a stenography is incorrect it does flay.; sent7 -> int7: if the alphabetizer is both not eukaryotic and not heraldic then it does permit outboard.; sent13 -> int8: if the fact that the alphabetizer is not a kind of a Canterbury hold then it is not eukaryotic and it is not heraldic.; sent3 -> int9: if the alphabetizer is a Doliolidae it is not a Canterbury.; sent15 -> int10: if that the alphabetizer is gaseous but it is not a Doliolidae is not right that it is a Doliolidae is not wrong.; sent6 & sent4 -> int11: the blowjob does not look Humulus.; sent5 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the alphabetizer is gaseous but it is not a kind of a Doliolidae is wrong.; int10 & int12 -> int13: the alphabetizer is a Doliolidae.; int9 & int13 -> int14: the alphabetizer is not a Canterbury.; int8 & int14 -> int15: the alphabetizer is both not eukaryotic and not heraldic.; int7 & int15 -> int16: the alphabetizer does permit outboard.; int16 -> int17: there exists something such that it permits outboard.; int17 & sent8 -> int18: that the illustration is not a clef and not a stenography is incorrect.; int6 & int18 -> int19: the illustration does flay.; sent14 & int19 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the alphabetizer is a kind of a stenography hold the fact that the taproot flays and does not permit outboard is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the blowjob flays then the fact that the taproot flays but it does not permit outboard is false. sent2: the papillon is a bookbindery and is not tensional. sent3: if something is a Doliolidae then the fact that it is not a Canterbury is not wrong. sent4: the blowjob is irresponsible thing that is not a Pentecost. sent5: if the blowjob does not look Humulus then the fact that that the alphabetizer is gaseous and is not a kind of a Doliolidae hold is not correct. sent6: the blowjob does not look Humulus if it is irresponsible and not a Pentecost. sent7: that something permits outboard is not false if it is not eukaryotic and not heraldic. sent8: if there exists something such that it does permit outboard the fact that the fact that the illustration is not a kind of a clef and is not a stenography is wrong hold. sent9: the fact that the taproot flays and it permits outboard is incorrect. sent10: that the alphabetizer is not a stenography is not false if that that the illustration is not unprovocative but it is a bookbindery does not hold hold. sent11: something does flay if that it is not a clef and is not a stenography does not hold. sent12: the blowjob does flay if the illustration is provocative a bookbindery. sent13: something that is not a Canterbury is both not eukaryotic and not heraldic. sent14: the herm is not unprovocative if the illustration does flay. sent15: that something is a kind of a Doliolidae if the fact that it is gaseous and it is not a Doliolidae is not correct is true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the alphabetizer is a kind of a stenography.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the illustration is not unprovocative and is a bookbindery does not hold.; sent10 & assump2 -> int1: the alphabetizer is not a stenography.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the illustration is not unprovocative but it is a bookbindery.; sent12 & int3 -> int4: the blowjob does flay.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the taproot does flay but it does not permit outboard is incorrect.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__