that the haven is a kind of a intellectualization but it is not consonantal is incorrect.
sent1: the staplegun does not salve haven if that the haven defrays backlash and is not a kind of a funicular does not hold. sent2: something is not a kind of a funicular. sent3: the fact that the fact that the staplegun does defray backlash and is a kind of a Menuhin is false is true if there exists something such that it is not funicular. sent4: that the haven is a intellectualization and consonantal is false. sent5: the fact that the haven is a kind of a intellectualization and is not consonantal is not true if it is a Vitharr. sent6: if the staplegun is a Vitharr that it defrays backlash and is a Menuhin does not hold. sent7: if something is not non-funicular it is both a intellectualization and not consonantal. sent8: something defrays backlash and is a Menuhin. sent9: something is seedy. sent10: that something does defray backlash and/or is a kind of a Menuhin is right if it is not a Vitharr. sent11: if the sporophyte is both not a Vitharr and a intellectualization then it is not a kind of a Menuhin. sent12: that that the haven is a kind of a Vitharr is not incorrect if there exists something such that that it does defray backlash and it is a Menuhin is wrong is not incorrect. sent13: the haven is not a Vitharr if the fact that it is neurophysiological and not seedy is not correct.
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the staplegun does defray backlash and it is a kind of a Menuhin is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it defrays backlash and is a Menuhin is not true.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the haven is a Vitharr.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the haven is a intellectualization but it is not consonantal.
sent7 -> int4: that the haven is both a intellectualization and not consonantal is not wrong if it is a kind of a funicular.; sent10 -> int5: if the haven is not a kind of a Vitharr it does defray backlash or is a Menuhin or both.;
$hypothesis$ = that the haven is a kind of a intellectualization but it is not consonantal is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the staplegun does not salve haven if that the haven defrays backlash and is not a kind of a funicular does not hold. sent2: something is not a kind of a funicular. sent3: the fact that the fact that the staplegun does defray backlash and is a kind of a Menuhin is false is true if there exists something such that it is not funicular. sent4: that the haven is a intellectualization and consonantal is false. sent5: the fact that the haven is a kind of a intellectualization and is not consonantal is not true if it is a Vitharr. sent6: if the staplegun is a Vitharr that it defrays backlash and is a Menuhin does not hold. sent7: if something is not non-funicular it is both a intellectualization and not consonantal. sent8: something defrays backlash and is a Menuhin. sent9: something is seedy. sent10: that something does defray backlash and/or is a kind of a Menuhin is right if it is not a Vitharr. sent11: if the sporophyte is both not a Vitharr and a intellectualization then it is not a kind of a Menuhin. sent12: that that the haven is a kind of a Vitharr is not incorrect if there exists something such that that it does defray backlash and it is a Menuhin is wrong is not incorrect. sent13: the haven is not a Vitharr if the fact that it is neurophysiological and not seedy is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the staplegun does defray backlash and it is a kind of a Menuhin is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it defrays backlash and is a Menuhin is not true.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the haven is a Vitharr.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__