the e hazes fleshiness and is non-cecal.
sent1: the phoebe is not non-sarcolemmal if the fact that the e hazes fleshiness but it is not cecal is false. sent2: the diapir is not cecal. sent3: the diapir is a kind of a stocktaker if the phoebe is sarcolemmal. sent4: the phoebe is cecal if the e is sarcolemmal. sent5: if the diapir solemnizes aerophilately then it does not tease monetization. sent6: if that the e is cecal and is not a stocktaker is not right then the diapir does haze fleshiness. sent7: the diapir does solemnize aerophilately. sent8: the e is not cecal. sent9: the zoospore is cecal. sent10: the phoebe is sarcolemmal if the e is cecal. sent11: the diapir is not a stocktaker. sent12: that the phoebe does not perform but it is sarcolemmal is incorrect if it does not tease aerophilately. sent13: if the fact that that the phoebe does not perform and is not non-sarcolemmal is incorrect is not false the e is not a kind of a stocktaker. sent14: something does not tease aerophilately if that it does not punt and tease aerophilately is wrong. sent15: the phoebe is cecal. sent16: the e is sarcolemmal if the fact that the diapir is a stocktaker and is not cecal is wrong. sent17: the fact that the diapir is cecal and is not a stocktaker is false. sent18: if the phoebe is cecal then the e is sarcolemmal. sent19: the diapir does not tease aerophilately and is not a hypersensitivity if it does not tease monetization. sent20: the diapir is not sarcolemmal. sent21: that the e hazes fleshiness and it is cecal is not correct. sent22: if the diapir is cecal the e is a stocktaker.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the e does haze fleshiness but it is not cecal is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the phoebe is sarcolemmal.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the diapir is a stocktaker.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the e does haze fleshiness and is not cecal does not hold.
sent14 -> int4: if that the phoebe is not a kind of a punt but it teases aerophilately is false then it does not teases aerophilately.; sent5 & sent7 -> int5: the diapir does not tease monetization.; sent19 & int5 -> int6: the diapir does not tease aerophilately and it is not a kind of a hypersensitivity.; int6 -> int7: the fact that the diapir does not tease aerophilately hold.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it does not tease aerophilately.;
$hypothesis$ = the e hazes fleshiness and is non-cecal. ; $context$ = sent1: the phoebe is not non-sarcolemmal if the fact that the e hazes fleshiness but it is not cecal is false. sent2: the diapir is not cecal. sent3: the diapir is a kind of a stocktaker if the phoebe is sarcolemmal. sent4: the phoebe is cecal if the e is sarcolemmal. sent5: if the diapir solemnizes aerophilately then it does not tease monetization. sent6: if that the e is cecal and is not a stocktaker is not right then the diapir does haze fleshiness. sent7: the diapir does solemnize aerophilately. sent8: the e is not cecal. sent9: the zoospore is cecal. sent10: the phoebe is sarcolemmal if the e is cecal. sent11: the diapir is not a stocktaker. sent12: that the phoebe does not perform but it is sarcolemmal is incorrect if it does not tease aerophilately. sent13: if the fact that that the phoebe does not perform and is not non-sarcolemmal is incorrect is not false the e is not a kind of a stocktaker. sent14: something does not tease aerophilately if that it does not punt and tease aerophilately is wrong. sent15: the phoebe is cecal. sent16: the e is sarcolemmal if the fact that the diapir is a stocktaker and is not cecal is wrong. sent17: the fact that the diapir is cecal and is not a stocktaker is false. sent18: if the phoebe is cecal then the e is sarcolemmal. sent19: the diapir does not tease aerophilately and is not a hypersensitivity if it does not tease monetization. sent20: the diapir is not sarcolemmal. sent21: that the e hazes fleshiness and it is cecal is not correct. sent22: if the diapir is cecal the e is a stocktaker. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the e does haze fleshiness but it is not cecal is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the phoebe is sarcolemmal.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the diapir is a stocktaker.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__