that the transcriptase is both not a devotional and chlamydial is not true.
sent1: the fact that the rockrose is not a catechist and inflates lignum does not hold if that it is not unsinkable is not incorrect. sent2: if something is a Joel the fact that the praetorium is not non-hydrostatic and it is unsinkable is wrong. sent3: the dolphinfish is a Joel. sent4: the transcriptase inflates lignum. sent5: the fact that that the waffler is not a devotional is correct if the SC does inflate lignum and is unsinkable hold. sent6: the SC is unsinkable. sent7: if something is not archducal the fact that that it is not a kind of a devotional and it is smoky is true is wrong. sent8: if the dolphinfish does not inflate lignum then the SC does inflate lignum and it is unsinkable. sent9: the waffler is not sinkable. sent10: the praetorium is not a Joel and it is non-hydrostatic. sent11: if the fact that the waffler is not a devotional is not false the fact that the transcriptase is not a devotional but chlamydial is incorrect. sent12: if the agglutinin is archducal then the dolphinfish does not inflate lignum. sent13: that the advocate is not a disco and not unsinkable hold. sent14: the agglutinin does inflate lignum if that the SC samples praetorium but it is not a kind of a XYY is not right. sent15: the fact that the SC samples praetorium but it is not a XYY does not hold if there is something such that it does not samples praetorium. sent16: the praetorium is a catechist if that the agglutinin is not archducal is not false. sent17: the transcriptase inflates lignum if the SC is not a devotional. sent18: the dolphinfish is chlamydial. sent19: the praetorium is a kind of hydrostatic thing that does inflate lignum if the dolphinfish is not hydrostatic. sent20: a non-archducal thing is not a devotional and is chlamydial. sent21: if the praetorium is both not a Joel and not hydrostatic it is not a catechist. sent22: the waffler does not sample praetorium. sent23: if there is something such that that the fact that it is hydrostatic and it is unsinkable is not false is not true the agglutinin is a catechist.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the agglutinin is not archducal.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the praetorium is a catechist.; sent21 & sent10 -> int2: the praetorium is not a kind of a catechist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the agglutinin is archducal.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: the dolphinfish does not inflate lignum.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the SC inflates lignum and is unsinkable.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the waffler is not a devotional.; int7 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
that the rockrose is not a devotional and is smoky is incorrect.
sent7 -> int8: if the rockrose is not archducal then the fact that it is not a devotional and is smoky does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = that the transcriptase is both not a devotional and chlamydial is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the rockrose is not a catechist and inflates lignum does not hold if that it is not unsinkable is not incorrect. sent2: if something is a Joel the fact that the praetorium is not non-hydrostatic and it is unsinkable is wrong. sent3: the dolphinfish is a Joel. sent4: the transcriptase inflates lignum. sent5: the fact that that the waffler is not a devotional is correct if the SC does inflate lignum and is unsinkable hold. sent6: the SC is unsinkable. sent7: if something is not archducal the fact that that it is not a kind of a devotional and it is smoky is true is wrong. sent8: if the dolphinfish does not inflate lignum then the SC does inflate lignum and it is unsinkable. sent9: the waffler is not sinkable. sent10: the praetorium is not a Joel and it is non-hydrostatic. sent11: if the fact that the waffler is not a devotional is not false the fact that the transcriptase is not a devotional but chlamydial is incorrect. sent12: if the agglutinin is archducal then the dolphinfish does not inflate lignum. sent13: that the advocate is not a disco and not unsinkable hold. sent14: the agglutinin does inflate lignum if that the SC samples praetorium but it is not a kind of a XYY is not right. sent15: the fact that the SC samples praetorium but it is not a XYY does not hold if there is something such that it does not samples praetorium. sent16: the praetorium is a catechist if that the agglutinin is not archducal is not false. sent17: the transcriptase inflates lignum if the SC is not a devotional. sent18: the dolphinfish is chlamydial. sent19: the praetorium is a kind of hydrostatic thing that does inflate lignum if the dolphinfish is not hydrostatic. sent20: a non-archducal thing is not a devotional and is chlamydial. sent21: if the praetorium is both not a Joel and not hydrostatic it is not a catechist. sent22: the waffler does not sample praetorium. sent23: if there is something such that that the fact that it is hydrostatic and it is unsinkable is not false is not true the agglutinin is a catechist. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the agglutinin is not archducal.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the praetorium is a catechist.; sent21 & sent10 -> int2: the praetorium is not a kind of a catechist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the agglutinin is archducal.; int4 & sent12 -> int5: the dolphinfish does not inflate lignum.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the SC inflates lignum and is unsinkable.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the waffler is not a devotional.; int7 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__