the bootleg does not agree.
sent1: the technophile is arthralgic. sent2: the araroba agrees. sent3: the technophile is authorial. sent4: the technophile rakes hostile. sent5: the fact that if something is a kind of Athenian thing that agrees it is not authorial is not incorrect. sent6: that the araroba is a satellite that does not agree does not hold if the technophile is not a Athenian. sent7: the Galilean is not authorial. sent8: something that is not a halophyte and not authorial is not a kind of a Athenian. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-Jamaican thing that is not archaeological does not hold then the archduchess is not arthralgic. sent10: if something is not non-Athenian and it is a halophyte the fact that it is not authorial is right. sent11: the bootleg is a kind of a halophyte. sent12: if the araroba is a satellite then the technophile is Athenian. sent13: the bootleg does not rake toponym. sent14: the fact that the araroba is a kind of a Athenian is not wrong if the fact that the technophile is a halophyte and/or not authorial is not true. sent15: if something is not a satellite then the bootleg does not agree. sent16: if the fact that something is a kind of a satellite that does not agree is not true it agree. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Jamaican and it is not archaeological is not right if it is not a kind of a Grant. sent18: if the AA is a rolling it is not a kind of a Grant. sent19: there exists something such that it is a satellite. sent20: something is acetic. sent21: if the archduchess is arthralgic the fact that the technophile is a halophyte or is not authorial or both is not correct. sent22: if the technophile is arthralgic then it is a halophyte. sent23: the technophile is triumphal. sent24: the araroba is Athenian. sent25: if there exists something such that that it is acetic hold then that the AA is a rolling and it is scarce is not false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the araroba satellites.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the technophile is a kind of a Athenian.; sent22 & sent1 -> int2: the technophile is a halophyte.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the technophile is a kind of a Athenian and it is a kind of a halophyte.; sent10 -> int4: the technophile is not authorial if it is a kind of Athenian a halophyte.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the technophile is non-authorial.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that the araroba is not a satellite hold.; int7 -> int8: something does not satellite.; int8 & sent15 -> hypothesis;
the bootleg does agree.
$hypothesis$ = the bootleg does not agree. ; $context$ = sent1: the technophile is arthralgic. sent2: the araroba agrees. sent3: the technophile is authorial. sent4: the technophile rakes hostile. sent5: the fact that if something is a kind of Athenian thing that agrees it is not authorial is not incorrect. sent6: that the araroba is a satellite that does not agree does not hold if the technophile is not a Athenian. sent7: the Galilean is not authorial. sent8: something that is not a halophyte and not authorial is not a kind of a Athenian. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-Jamaican thing that is not archaeological does not hold then the archduchess is not arthralgic. sent10: if something is not non-Athenian and it is a halophyte the fact that it is not authorial is right. sent11: the bootleg is a kind of a halophyte. sent12: if the araroba is a satellite then the technophile is Athenian. sent13: the bootleg does not rake toponym. sent14: the fact that the araroba is a kind of a Athenian is not wrong if the fact that the technophile is a halophyte and/or not authorial is not true. sent15: if something is not a satellite then the bootleg does not agree. sent16: if the fact that something is a kind of a satellite that does not agree is not true it agree. sent17: that something is not a kind of a Jamaican and it is not archaeological is not right if it is not a kind of a Grant. sent18: if the AA is a rolling it is not a kind of a Grant. sent19: there exists something such that it is a satellite. sent20: something is acetic. sent21: if the archduchess is arthralgic the fact that the technophile is a halophyte or is not authorial or both is not correct. sent22: if the technophile is arthralgic then it is a halophyte. sent23: the technophile is triumphal. sent24: the araroba is Athenian. sent25: if there exists something such that that it is acetic hold then that the AA is a rolling and it is scarce is not false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the araroba satellites.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the technophile is a kind of a Athenian.; sent22 & sent1 -> int2: the technophile is a halophyte.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the technophile is a kind of a Athenian and it is a kind of a halophyte.; sent10 -> int4: the technophile is not authorial if it is a kind of Athenian a halophyte.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the technophile is non-authorial.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that the araroba is not a satellite hold.; int7 -> int8: something does not satellite.; int8 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__