if the Winesap processes scholarship that the pye-dog does not disco and is cataphatic does not hold.
sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of non-purposeless thing that is a woodcock is not correct it does not process scholarship. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both a Leiophyllum and a Romanian is not correct the ketoprofen is not a Romanian. sent3: the pye-dog does not process scholarship if the fact that the fact that the dracontium is a kind of a Romanian and does not arrogate Kodiak is not wrong does not hold. sent4: the fact that the dracontium is a Romanian that does not arrogate Kodiak is incorrect if there is something such that it is not a Romanian. sent5: if something is cataphatic then that it is both arenicolous and not a woodcock is incorrect. sent6: something is cataphatic or it discos or both if it does not process scholarship. sent7: the parturition is not a woodcock if it is cataphatic. sent8: if the parturition is not cataphatic the fact that the pye-dog does not disco and is cataphatic is not true. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a Leiophyllum and it is a kind of a Romanian is not correct. sent10: the parturition is not arenicolous if that the Winesap is arenicolous thing that is not a woodcock is not right. sent11: that the Winesap is not purposeless and is a woodcock is not correct if the parturition is not a woodcock.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the parturition is cataphatic.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the parturition is not a kind of a woodcock is not false.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the Winesap is not purposeless and is a woodcock does not hold.; sent1 -> int3: the Winesap does not process scholarship if that it is not purposeless and it is a woodcock does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the Winesap does not process scholarship hold.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Winesap processes scholarship.; int4 & assump2 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the parturition is not cataphatic.; int6 & sent8 -> int7: the fact that the pye-dog does not disco and is cataphatic does not hold.; [assump2] & int7 -> hypothesis;
that the Nicaraguan is not purposeless and is arenicolous is not right.
sent5 -> int8: if the Winesap is cataphatic then that it is arenicolous and it is not a woodcock is false.; sent6 -> int9: if the pye-dog does not process scholarship it is cataphatic and/or it is a disco.; sent9 & sent2 -> int10: the ketoprofen is not a Romanian.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Romanian.; int11 & sent4 -> int12: that the dracontium is a Romanian but it does not arrogate Kodiak does not hold.; sent3 & int12 -> int13: the pye-dog does not process scholarship.; int9 & int13 -> int14: the pye-dog is cataphatic and/or it is a disco.;
$hypothesis$ = if the Winesap processes scholarship that the pye-dog does not disco and is cataphatic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is a kind of non-purposeless thing that is a woodcock is not correct it does not process scholarship. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both a Leiophyllum and a Romanian is not correct the ketoprofen is not a Romanian. sent3: the pye-dog does not process scholarship if the fact that the fact that the dracontium is a kind of a Romanian and does not arrogate Kodiak is not wrong does not hold. sent4: the fact that the dracontium is a Romanian that does not arrogate Kodiak is incorrect if there is something such that it is not a Romanian. sent5: if something is cataphatic then that it is both arenicolous and not a woodcock is incorrect. sent6: something is cataphatic or it discos or both if it does not process scholarship. sent7: the parturition is not a woodcock if it is cataphatic. sent8: if the parturition is not cataphatic the fact that the pye-dog does not disco and is cataphatic is not true. sent9: there is something such that the fact that it is a Leiophyllum and it is a kind of a Romanian is not correct. sent10: the parturition is not arenicolous if that the Winesap is arenicolous thing that is not a woodcock is not right. sent11: that the Winesap is not purposeless and is a woodcock is not correct if the parturition is not a woodcock. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the parturition is cataphatic.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the parturition is not a kind of a woodcock is not false.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the fact that the Winesap is not purposeless and is a woodcock does not hold.; sent1 -> int3: the Winesap does not process scholarship if that it is not purposeless and it is a woodcock does not hold.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the Winesap does not process scholarship hold.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Winesap processes scholarship.; int4 & assump2 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the parturition is not cataphatic.; int6 & sent8 -> int7: the fact that the pye-dog does not disco and is cataphatic does not hold.; [assump2] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__