the lady-slipper does not jumble Daedalus.
sent1: the star-glory is not a kind of a quartan and/or it is a lumber if the fact that it does not personify zamia is correct. sent2: the lady-slipper is contestable. sent3: the acarid is a beam if it is contestable. sent4: if there is something such that it is acetonic the acarid is not a beam. sent5: the acarid beams and/or jumbles Daedalus. sent6: the lady-slipper either is a beam or interlocks kanzu or both. sent7: the lady-slipper does personify andante if the fact that it does not jumble Daedalus and is not a kind of a robustness is wrong. sent8: the fact that the acarid does not personify andante and it is not contestable is wrong. sent9: the fact that the acarid is not a beam but a dodderer is false if the snipefish does not personify andante. sent10: the icepick is multidimensional and/or a greenbottle. sent11: the snipefish personifies zamia. sent12: if the fact that the acarid does not personify andante and it is not contestable is false then that it does beam hold. sent13: if there exists something such that it is not incontestable then the lady-slipper is not cardiographic. sent14: the acarid is not a beam if something is acetonic and/or it is a kind of a robustness. sent15: the acarid is not acetonic. sent16: the star-glory does not personify zamia. sent17: something is a kind of a lumber if it is not quartan and/or is a lumber. sent18: the snipefish does not personify andante if the wastage is not contestable. sent19: that the lady-slipper does not interlock wastage is not false. sent20: the lady-slipper does not personify andante if something is acetonic. sent21: a contestable thing personifies andante. sent22: if the lady-slipper is a dodderer it does jumble Daedalus. sent23: that something is not a dodderer but it jumbles Daedalus is false if that it personifies andante hold. sent24: the lady-slipper is acetonic or a robustness or both if it is not a dodderer. sent25: if the fact that the lady-slipper is not a dodderer and does jumble Daedalus is false it beams.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lady-slipper is not a kind of a dodderer.; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: either the lady-slipper is acetonic or it is a robustness or both.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is either acetonic or a robustness or both.; int2 & sent14 -> int3: the acarid is not a beam.; sent12 & sent8 -> int4: the acarid does beam.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the lady-slipper is a kind of a dodderer.; int6 & sent22 -> hypothesis;
the lady-slipper beams.
sent23 -> int7: if the lady-slipper personifies andante then the fact that the fact that it is not a dodderer and it jumbles Daedalus hold is false.; sent21 -> int8: the fact that if the lady-slipper is contestable then the lady-slipper personifies andante hold.; sent11 -> int9: something personifies zamia.;
$hypothesis$ = the lady-slipper does not jumble Daedalus. ; $context$ = sent1: the star-glory is not a kind of a quartan and/or it is a lumber if the fact that it does not personify zamia is correct. sent2: the lady-slipper is contestable. sent3: the acarid is a beam if it is contestable. sent4: if there is something such that it is acetonic the acarid is not a beam. sent5: the acarid beams and/or jumbles Daedalus. sent6: the lady-slipper either is a beam or interlocks kanzu or both. sent7: the lady-slipper does personify andante if the fact that it does not jumble Daedalus and is not a kind of a robustness is wrong. sent8: the fact that the acarid does not personify andante and it is not contestable is wrong. sent9: the fact that the acarid is not a beam but a dodderer is false if the snipefish does not personify andante. sent10: the icepick is multidimensional and/or a greenbottle. sent11: the snipefish personifies zamia. sent12: if the fact that the acarid does not personify andante and it is not contestable is false then that it does beam hold. sent13: if there exists something such that it is not incontestable then the lady-slipper is not cardiographic. sent14: the acarid is not a beam if something is acetonic and/or it is a kind of a robustness. sent15: the acarid is not acetonic. sent16: the star-glory does not personify zamia. sent17: something is a kind of a lumber if it is not quartan and/or is a lumber. sent18: the snipefish does not personify andante if the wastage is not contestable. sent19: that the lady-slipper does not interlock wastage is not false. sent20: the lady-slipper does not personify andante if something is acetonic. sent21: a contestable thing personifies andante. sent22: if the lady-slipper is a dodderer it does jumble Daedalus. sent23: that something is not a dodderer but it jumbles Daedalus is false if that it personifies andante hold. sent24: the lady-slipper is acetonic or a robustness or both if it is not a dodderer. sent25: if the fact that the lady-slipper is not a dodderer and does jumble Daedalus is false it beams. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lady-slipper is not a kind of a dodderer.; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: either the lady-slipper is acetonic or it is a robustness or both.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is either acetonic or a robustness or both.; int2 & sent14 -> int3: the acarid is not a beam.; sent12 & sent8 -> int4: the acarid does beam.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the lady-slipper is a kind of a dodderer.; int6 & sent22 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__