the fact that the GABA is not pentecostal but it dims is false.
sent1: something is nonsyllabic and is not argumentative if that it is not wigged is not incorrect. sent2: the chancel is not a protohippus and it does not rice arrogator. sent3: the chancel is not wigless if the WWW is nonsyllabic and does not snag gypsum. sent4: if something is not wigless it is not faucal. sent5: the fact that the servitor is not male but non-polygonal is not right. sent6: something does not rice arrogator and it is not joyous if it does not snag gypsum. sent7: if the arrogator is a kind of a protohippus the chancel does not rice arrogator. sent8: the chancel does not snag gypsum if the fact that the GABA is nonsyllabic but it is not argumentative is not false. sent9: the arrogator is a protohippus if the fact that the registrar is not a protohippus and is not a kind of an amorist is not right. sent10: if the sealskin is wigless then the GABA is wigless. sent11: if that the WWW does not snag gypsum but it is argumentative is false then the sealskin does not snag gypsum. sent12: if something is nonsyllabic then that that it does not snag gypsum and is argumentative is correct does not hold. sent13: if something is polygonal that it is not a protohippus and not an amorist is false. sent14: the sealskin is not argumentative if the GABA is non-pentecostal thing that does dim. sent15: if the sealskin is not argumentative then the WWW is nonsyllabic but it does not snag gypsum. sent16: the chancel is faucal if it is not a protohippus and it does not rice arrogator. sent17: the GABA is not pentecostal but it is dimmed if that the sealskin does not snag gypsum is not incorrect. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is polygonal and/or it is an amorist does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the GABA is both not pentecostal and dimmed.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the sealskin is not argumentative.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the WWW is nonsyllabic and does not snag gypsum.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the chancel is not wigless.; sent4 -> int4: if the chancel is not wigless then it is not faucal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the chancel is non-faucal.; sent16 & sent2 -> int6: the chancel is faucal.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the GABA is not pentecostal but it does dim.
sent12 -> int8: that the WWW does not snag gypsum and is argumentative is not right if it is nonsyllabic.; sent13 -> int9: that that the registrar is not a protohippus and it is not an amorist hold is not right if it is polygonal.; sent5 -> int10: there exists something such that that it is not a male and it is non-polygonal is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the GABA is not pentecostal but it dims is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something is nonsyllabic and is not argumentative if that it is not wigged is not incorrect. sent2: the chancel is not a protohippus and it does not rice arrogator. sent3: the chancel is not wigless if the WWW is nonsyllabic and does not snag gypsum. sent4: if something is not wigless it is not faucal. sent5: the fact that the servitor is not male but non-polygonal is not right. sent6: something does not rice arrogator and it is not joyous if it does not snag gypsum. sent7: if the arrogator is a kind of a protohippus the chancel does not rice arrogator. sent8: the chancel does not snag gypsum if the fact that the GABA is nonsyllabic but it is not argumentative is not false. sent9: the arrogator is a protohippus if the fact that the registrar is not a protohippus and is not a kind of an amorist is not right. sent10: if the sealskin is wigless then the GABA is wigless. sent11: if that the WWW does not snag gypsum but it is argumentative is false then the sealskin does not snag gypsum. sent12: if something is nonsyllabic then that that it does not snag gypsum and is argumentative is correct does not hold. sent13: if something is polygonal that it is not a protohippus and not an amorist is false. sent14: the sealskin is not argumentative if the GABA is non-pentecostal thing that does dim. sent15: if the sealskin is not argumentative then the WWW is nonsyllabic but it does not snag gypsum. sent16: the chancel is faucal if it is not a protohippus and it does not rice arrogator. sent17: the GABA is not pentecostal but it is dimmed if that the sealskin does not snag gypsum is not incorrect. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is polygonal and/or it is an amorist does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the GABA is both not pentecostal and dimmed.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the sealskin is not argumentative.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the WWW is nonsyllabic and does not snag gypsum.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the chancel is not wigless.; sent4 -> int4: if the chancel is not wigless then it is not faucal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the chancel is non-faucal.; sent16 & sent2 -> int6: the chancel is faucal.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__