the caladium is a kind of a berth and it does pleat craftiness.
sent1: something is a ruler and it is a kind of a compact if it does not pleat Trogium. sent2: that the obscurantist is a duet that does not ramble is not correct if there exists something such that it does not weigh. sent3: the heulandite is not a calculator. sent4: the caladium does berth. sent5: the tuft does not weigh if there is something such that it is a brachiation. sent6: that something is a kind of an acclaim that does not rake liquefaction is not true if it is a Cochise. sent7: if the hideaway is an acclaim then the fact that the liquefaction is not an acclaim and it does not rake liquefaction is wrong. sent8: if the periosteum does compact the hideaway is a kind of a Cochise. sent9: the fact that the liquefaction is not Canadian and it is not a Arulo is not right. sent10: the heulandite is a brachiation and it pleats Kotoko if it is not a kind of a calculator. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a duet that is not a kind of a ramble is not right then the periosteum does not pleat Trogium. sent12: the periosteum does not acclaim and it is not Gauguinesque. sent13: if the fact that the liquefaction is not a kind of a valine and is not Gauguinesque does not hold the caladium does pleat craftiness. sent14: if the hideaway acclaims then the fact that the periosteum is not an acclaims and is not a kind of a Cochise is false. sent15: that the liquefaction is a berth and is not a kind of a valine does not hold if the caladium berth. sent16: the caladium is not a valine. sent17: the periosteum does not acclaim and is not a Cochise. sent18: if the liquefaction does rake liquefaction the hideaway acclaims. sent19: if that something is an acclaim and does not rake liquefaction is not true then it does not pleat craftiness. sent20: the phonetician does not rake liquefaction. sent21: the hideaway does pleat craftiness if it is an acclaim and does not rake liquefaction. sent22: something is not allopathic and it is not a berth if it does not acclaim. sent23: if something that is not a valine is not Gauguinesque then it does rake liquefaction.
sent23 -> int1: the liquefaction does rake liquefaction if it is both not a valine and not Gauguinesque.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the liquefaction is not a valine and it is not Gauguinesque.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the liquefaction rakes liquefaction.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the hideaway is an acclaim.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: that the periosteum is not an acclaim and is not a Cochise does not hold.; int4 & sent17 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: that the liquefaction is not a valine and it is not Gauguinesque does not hold.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the caladium pleats craftiness.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the sacking is both not allopathic and not a berth.
sent22 -> int8: if the hideaway is not an acclaim then it is non-allopathic and is not a berth.;
$hypothesis$ = the caladium is a kind of a berth and it does pleat craftiness. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a ruler and it is a kind of a compact if it does not pleat Trogium. sent2: that the obscurantist is a duet that does not ramble is not correct if there exists something such that it does not weigh. sent3: the heulandite is not a calculator. sent4: the caladium does berth. sent5: the tuft does not weigh if there is something such that it is a brachiation. sent6: that something is a kind of an acclaim that does not rake liquefaction is not true if it is a Cochise. sent7: if the hideaway is an acclaim then the fact that the liquefaction is not an acclaim and it does not rake liquefaction is wrong. sent8: if the periosteum does compact the hideaway is a kind of a Cochise. sent9: the fact that the liquefaction is not Canadian and it is not a Arulo is not right. sent10: the heulandite is a brachiation and it pleats Kotoko if it is not a kind of a calculator. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a duet that is not a kind of a ramble is not right then the periosteum does not pleat Trogium. sent12: the periosteum does not acclaim and it is not Gauguinesque. sent13: if the fact that the liquefaction is not a kind of a valine and is not Gauguinesque does not hold the caladium does pleat craftiness. sent14: if the hideaway acclaims then the fact that the periosteum is not an acclaims and is not a kind of a Cochise is false. sent15: that the liquefaction is a berth and is not a kind of a valine does not hold if the caladium berth. sent16: the caladium is not a valine. sent17: the periosteum does not acclaim and is not a Cochise. sent18: if the liquefaction does rake liquefaction the hideaway acclaims. sent19: if that something is an acclaim and does not rake liquefaction is not true then it does not pleat craftiness. sent20: the phonetician does not rake liquefaction. sent21: the hideaway does pleat craftiness if it is an acclaim and does not rake liquefaction. sent22: something is not allopathic and it is not a berth if it does not acclaim. sent23: if something that is not a valine is not Gauguinesque then it does rake liquefaction. ; $proof$ = 
sent23 -> int1: the liquefaction does rake liquefaction if it is both not a valine and not Gauguinesque.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the liquefaction is not a valine and it is not Gauguinesque.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the liquefaction rakes liquefaction.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the hideaway is an acclaim.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: that the periosteum is not an acclaim and is not a Cochise does not hold.; int4 & sent17 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: that the liquefaction is not a valine and it is not Gauguinesque does not hold.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the caladium pleats craftiness.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__