the baldhead is a jessamine.
sent1: the conformist breakfasts receptiveness if that it is not cismontane and it amerces override is false. sent2: the fact that the conformist does not breakfast receptiveness is not wrong if there is something such that it is a kind of a MB that does not breakfast bisque. sent3: something is not a megillah if it is non-cismontane thing that amerces override. sent4: if something is non-Praetorian then the fact that it is a megillah and it does breakfast receptiveness is not true. sent5: the baldhead is a kind of a jessamine if the natterjack is a kind of a hieratic. sent6: there exists something such that it is a MB and it does not breakfast bisque. sent7: the bisque is not a hieratic if that it is both hieratic and a MB is false. sent8: the natterjack is a kind of a hieratic if it is both arthromeric and not a megillah. sent9: that the conformist does not breakfast receptiveness and is a megillah does not hold if the natterjack is a Praetorian. sent10: that the natterjack is arthromeric is not false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the conformist is not cismontane and does amerce override does not hold is right.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the conformist breakfasts receptiveness.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: the conformist does not breakfast receptiveness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the conformist is a kind of non-cismontane thing that does amerce override.; sent3 -> int5: if the conformist is not cismontane and does amerce override then it is not a kind of a megillah.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the conformist is not a megillah.;
the pandiculation does not breakfast receptiveness.
sent4 -> int7: the fact that the conformist is a megillah and it breakfasts receptiveness is not correct if it is not a Praetorian.;
$hypothesis$ = the baldhead is a jessamine. ; $context$ = sent1: the conformist breakfasts receptiveness if that it is not cismontane and it amerces override is false. sent2: the fact that the conformist does not breakfast receptiveness is not wrong if there is something such that it is a kind of a MB that does not breakfast bisque. sent3: something is not a megillah if it is non-cismontane thing that amerces override. sent4: if something is non-Praetorian then the fact that it is a megillah and it does breakfast receptiveness is not true. sent5: the baldhead is a kind of a jessamine if the natterjack is a kind of a hieratic. sent6: there exists something such that it is a MB and it does not breakfast bisque. sent7: the bisque is not a hieratic if that it is both hieratic and a MB is false. sent8: the natterjack is a kind of a hieratic if it is both arthromeric and not a megillah. sent9: that the conformist does not breakfast receptiveness and is a megillah does not hold if the natterjack is a Praetorian. sent10: that the natterjack is arthromeric is not false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the conformist is not cismontane and does amerce override does not hold is right.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the conformist breakfasts receptiveness.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: the conformist does not breakfast receptiveness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the conformist is a kind of non-cismontane thing that does amerce override.; sent3 -> int5: if the conformist is not cismontane and does amerce override then it is not a kind of a megillah.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the conformist is not a megillah.; __UNKNOWN__