if the recess is papery the fact that the washerman is both a dative and not a tying does not hold.
sent1: if something is not perianal the recess is not papery. sent2: if something is not a kind of a dative then the fact that it is not non-papery and it ties is not true. sent3: the fact that the steerage is a kind of a dative that does tie is wrong. sent4: the fact that the recess is perianal and it does tie is wrong if the fact that the vitrification is papery is right. sent5: that the vitrification is a kind of a tying and is not a buyer does not hold. sent6: the fact that if the steerage is a dative then that the vitrification is perianal but it is not a buyer is not right hold. sent7: the recess is not papery if there exists something such that that it is perianal and it is not a buyer is not true. sent8: if the steerage is not a dative then that the washerman is a kind of a dative that is not a tying is false. sent9: if that something is papery thing that is a tying is false then that it does not tying is correct. sent10: the washerman is a awlwort. sent11: if there exists something such that it is papery the washerman does not tie. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it does adjoin Chavez and it is violent is wrong. sent13: that the vitrification is a dative and it is a kind of a buyer is wrong if the steerage is not a dative. sent14: the fact that that the washerman is a dative and it ties does not hold if the steerage is not a kind of a dative is not wrong. sent15: that the vitrification is perianal but not papery does not hold. sent16: the washerman is a kind of a dative but it does not tie if the steerage is not a kind of a dative. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it is perianal and it is a buyer is wrong. sent18: if that something is a dative and it is a kind of a junction does not hold then it is not a dative. sent19: the fact that the vitrification is perianal and not a dative is right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recess is papery.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the steerage is a dative.; sent6 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the vitrification is perianal thing that is not a buyer is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is perianal and it is not a buyer does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the recess is non-papery.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the steerage is not a dative.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the washerman is a kind of a dative but it is not a tying is not correct.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the megasporophyll does not tie.
sent9 -> int7: the megasporophyll is not a tying if that it is papery and it tying does not hold.; sent2 -> int8: if that the megasporophyll is not a dative hold then the fact that it is papery thing that is a tying is not true.; sent18 -> int9: if the fact that the megasporophyll is a dative and it is a junction does not hold then it is not a dative.;
$hypothesis$ = if the recess is papery the fact that the washerman is both a dative and not a tying does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not perianal the recess is not papery. sent2: if something is not a kind of a dative then the fact that it is not non-papery and it ties is not true. sent3: the fact that the steerage is a kind of a dative that does tie is wrong. sent4: the fact that the recess is perianal and it does tie is wrong if the fact that the vitrification is papery is right. sent5: that the vitrification is a kind of a tying and is not a buyer does not hold. sent6: the fact that if the steerage is a dative then that the vitrification is perianal but it is not a buyer is not right hold. sent7: the recess is not papery if there exists something such that that it is perianal and it is not a buyer is not true. sent8: if the steerage is not a dative then that the washerman is a kind of a dative that is not a tying is false. sent9: if that something is papery thing that is a tying is false then that it does not tying is correct. sent10: the washerman is a awlwort. sent11: if there exists something such that it is papery the washerman does not tie. sent12: there is something such that the fact that it does adjoin Chavez and it is violent is wrong. sent13: that the vitrification is a dative and it is a kind of a buyer is wrong if the steerage is not a dative. sent14: the fact that that the washerman is a dative and it ties does not hold if the steerage is not a kind of a dative is not wrong. sent15: that the vitrification is perianal but not papery does not hold. sent16: the washerman is a kind of a dative but it does not tie if the steerage is not a kind of a dative. sent17: there is something such that the fact that it is perianal and it is a buyer is wrong. sent18: if that something is a dative and it is a kind of a junction does not hold then it is not a dative. sent19: the fact that the vitrification is perianal and not a dative is right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recess is papery.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the steerage is a dative.; sent6 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the vitrification is perianal thing that is not a buyer is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is perianal and it is not a buyer does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the recess is non-papery.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the steerage is not a dative.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the washerman is a kind of a dative but it is not a tying is not correct.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__