that the private is both diurnal and not diamantine hold.
sent1: the private is diurnal. sent2: the private is not unselfish if the huntress is a kind of a marzipan that is not a kind of a inadmissibility. sent3: the countersink is a inadmissibility. sent4: if something is apogean then it is a kind of a marzipan and is not a kind of a inadmissibility. sent5: if the fact that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and it is not a dominant is incorrect then the countersink is unselfish. sent6: the huntress is diurnal. sent7: the private is a marzipan if that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and is not diurnal is wrong. sent8: the private is not diamantine if the countersink is both a inadmissibility and unselfish. sent9: the huntress is a marzipan. sent10: that something is diurnal but not diamantine is wrong if it is not unselfish. sent11: if the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and is not a dominant then it is not a kind of a marzipan.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and is not a kind of a dominant.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: that the huntress is not a marzipan is right.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and it is not dominant does not hold.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the countersink is unselfish.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the countersink is a kind of a inadmissibility and is unselfish.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the fact that the private is not diamantine hold.; int6 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
that the private is diurnal but not diamantine is incorrect.
sent10 -> int7: if the private is not unselfish then that it is diurnal and it is not diamantine does not hold.; sent4 -> int8: if the huntress is apogean then it is a marzipan that is not a inadmissibility.;
$hypothesis$ = that the private is both diurnal and not diamantine hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the private is diurnal. sent2: the private is not unselfish if the huntress is a kind of a marzipan that is not a kind of a inadmissibility. sent3: the countersink is a inadmissibility. sent4: if something is apogean then it is a kind of a marzipan and is not a kind of a inadmissibility. sent5: if the fact that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and it is not a dominant is incorrect then the countersink is unselfish. sent6: the huntress is diurnal. sent7: the private is a marzipan if that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and is not diurnal is wrong. sent8: the private is not diamantine if the countersink is both a inadmissibility and unselfish. sent9: the huntress is a marzipan. sent10: that something is diurnal but not diamantine is wrong if it is not unselfish. sent11: if the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and is not a dominant then it is not a kind of a marzipan. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and is not a kind of a dominant.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: that the huntress is not a marzipan is right.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the huntress does not encapsulate undernourishment and it is not dominant does not hold.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the countersink is unselfish.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the countersink is a kind of a inadmissibility and is unselfish.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the fact that the private is not diamantine hold.; int6 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__