the butternut is bioclimatic.
sent1: that the efferent is a judgeship is not wrong if the transamination does not complect wiseacre. sent2: if something that complects wiseacre is not a judgeship then it is a seduction. sent3: the transamination complects post-maturity. sent4: the efferent complects wiseacre. sent5: if that the wheatfield complects post-maturity but it is not a kind of a Oceanic does not hold then it does not complects post-maturity. sent6: the transamination does complect Meniscium if it does complect wiseacre. sent7: if there exists something such that it does complect Meniscium and does complect atrazine the fact that the butternut is bioclimatic is true. sent8: the transamination is bioclimatic thing that gloms adulterator. sent9: there is something such that it complects wiseacre. sent10: The atrazine complects transamination. sent11: the transamination is not a sternness. sent12: if the efferent does not complect Meniscium but it complects atrazine it does not complect post-maturity. sent13: that the wheatfield complects wiseacre is right. sent14: the fact that the wheatfield does complect post-maturity but it is not a Oceanic is not right. sent15: the transamination is a Oceanic if the wheatfield does complect Meniscium. sent16: the airgun is a nilgai and it does complect Meniscium. sent17: the dray does complect atrazine. sent18: the transamination complects atrazine. sent19: if the efferent is a kind of a judgeship the wheatfield complects post-maturity. sent20: the fact that the efferent does complect Meniscium is not wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the transamination does not complect wiseacre.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the efferent is a kind of a judgeship.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the wheatfield does complect post-maturity.; sent5 & sent14 -> int3: the wheatfield does not complect post-maturity.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the transamination does complect wiseacre is not false.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the transamination complects Meniscium.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the transamination complects Meniscium and complects atrazine.; int7 -> int8: something does complect Meniscium and does complect atrazine.; int8 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
something gloms adulterator and it is a kind of a seduction.
sent8 -> int9: the transamination gloms adulterator.; sent2 -> int10: if the transamination does complect wiseacre and is not a kind of a judgeship it is a kind of a seduction.;
$hypothesis$ = the butternut is bioclimatic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the efferent is a judgeship is not wrong if the transamination does not complect wiseacre. sent2: if something that complects wiseacre is not a judgeship then it is a seduction. sent3: the transamination complects post-maturity. sent4: the efferent complects wiseacre. sent5: if that the wheatfield complects post-maturity but it is not a kind of a Oceanic does not hold then it does not complects post-maturity. sent6: the transamination does complect Meniscium if it does complect wiseacre. sent7: if there exists something such that it does complect Meniscium and does complect atrazine the fact that the butternut is bioclimatic is true. sent8: the transamination is bioclimatic thing that gloms adulterator. sent9: there is something such that it complects wiseacre. sent10: The atrazine complects transamination. sent11: the transamination is not a sternness. sent12: if the efferent does not complect Meniscium but it complects atrazine it does not complect post-maturity. sent13: that the wheatfield complects wiseacre is right. sent14: the fact that the wheatfield does complect post-maturity but it is not a Oceanic is not right. sent15: the transamination is a Oceanic if the wheatfield does complect Meniscium. sent16: the airgun is a nilgai and it does complect Meniscium. sent17: the dray does complect atrazine. sent18: the transamination complects atrazine. sent19: if the efferent is a kind of a judgeship the wheatfield complects post-maturity. sent20: the fact that the efferent does complect Meniscium is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the transamination does not complect wiseacre.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the efferent is a kind of a judgeship.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the wheatfield does complect post-maturity.; sent5 & sent14 -> int3: the wheatfield does not complect post-maturity.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the transamination does complect wiseacre is not false.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the transamination complects Meniscium.; int6 & sent18 -> int7: the transamination complects Meniscium and complects atrazine.; int7 -> int8: something does complect Meniscium and does complect atrazine.; int8 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__