the daphne is a kind of alphabetic thing that is rickettsial.
sent1: something is a littleneck if it is abaxial. sent2: there exists something such that it is not actable and not non-future. sent3: if the stable is not a Volvox then it is not a littleneck. sent4: if the net is not unmanly it is rickettsial and is a glycol. sent5: if the roundel does not impair Gynura then the stable does deplore mango and it is a bolster. sent6: if the stable is rickettsial it is alphabetic. sent7: something does bask jacksnipe if it is antimagnetic. sent8: that the fact that the stable does deplore stable but it is not rickettsial is not right hold. sent9: that the daphne is alphabetic and it is rickettsial is false if the stable is not rickettsial. sent10: if the daphne is not abaxial then it is both a littleneck and not non-alphabetic. sent11: the stable is not a littleneck if that it does not deplore adenine and is a kind of a Volvox is not correct. sent12: if there are non-actable and future things the roundel does not impair Gynura. sent13: that the stable does not deplore stable but it is rickettsial is false. sent14: that the daphne is a kind of non-rickettsial thing that deplores adenine is wrong. sent15: the fact that the stable does not deplore adenine and is a Volvox is not true. sent16: if that the fact that the stable does not deplore stable and it is not rickettsial is not correct hold then it is abaxial. sent17: the fact that the stable is a kind of a spelling and is dimorphic is not correct. sent18: that the daphne does not deplore adenine but it is a kind of a Volvox is not true if the stable does deplore mango. sent19: the fact that if the net is rickettsial then the daphne is not rickettsial hold. sent20: that the daphne is abaxial and it is rickettsial is incorrect if the stable is not rickettsial.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the stable does not deplore stable and is not rickettsial does not hold.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: that the stable is abaxial is correct.; sent1 -> int2: the stable is a littleneck if it is abaxial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stable is a kind of a littleneck.; sent11 & sent15 -> int4: the stable is not a kind of a littleneck.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the stable does not deplore stable and is not rickettsial.; int6 -> int7: the stable is not rickettsial.; int7 & sent9 -> hypothesis;
the mango basks jacksnipe if it is not non-antimagnetic.
sent7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the daphne is a kind of alphabetic thing that is rickettsial. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a littleneck if it is abaxial. sent2: there exists something such that it is not actable and not non-future. sent3: if the stable is not a Volvox then it is not a littleneck. sent4: if the net is not unmanly it is rickettsial and is a glycol. sent5: if the roundel does not impair Gynura then the stable does deplore mango and it is a bolster. sent6: if the stable is rickettsial it is alphabetic. sent7: something does bask jacksnipe if it is antimagnetic. sent8: that the fact that the stable does deplore stable but it is not rickettsial is not right hold. sent9: that the daphne is alphabetic and it is rickettsial is false if the stable is not rickettsial. sent10: if the daphne is not abaxial then it is both a littleneck and not non-alphabetic. sent11: the stable is not a littleneck if that it does not deplore adenine and is a kind of a Volvox is not correct. sent12: if there are non-actable and future things the roundel does not impair Gynura. sent13: that the stable does not deplore stable but it is rickettsial is false. sent14: that the daphne is a kind of non-rickettsial thing that deplores adenine is wrong. sent15: the fact that the stable does not deplore adenine and is a Volvox is not true. sent16: if that the fact that the stable does not deplore stable and it is not rickettsial is not correct hold then it is abaxial. sent17: the fact that the stable is a kind of a spelling and is dimorphic is not correct. sent18: that the daphne does not deplore adenine but it is a kind of a Volvox is not true if the stable does deplore mango. sent19: the fact that if the net is rickettsial then the daphne is not rickettsial hold. sent20: that the daphne is abaxial and it is rickettsial is incorrect if the stable is not rickettsial. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the stable does not deplore stable and is not rickettsial does not hold.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: that the stable is abaxial is correct.; sent1 -> int2: the stable is a littleneck if it is abaxial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the stable is a kind of a littleneck.; sent11 & sent15 -> int4: the stable is not a kind of a littleneck.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the stable does not deplore stable and is not rickettsial.; int6 -> int7: the stable is not rickettsial.; int7 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__