if the nonparticipant is not retroactive that the ammonification is a thump and it is a Rastafarianism does not hold.
sent1: the fact that the nonparticipant is a thump and it is a Rastafarianism does not hold if the ammonification is not a behaviorist. sent2: the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist if there exists something such that it does not foal eyeshadow and does not brace. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it does not foal eyeshadow and it does brace is not wrong. sent4: something is not a bracing. sent5: something does not foal eyeshadow and it does not brace. sent6: if a thump masks then it is not a behaviorist. sent7: if the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist and is not retroactive then the Skagit is not a kind of a thump. sent8: the fact that there is something such that it foals eyeshadow and does not brace is not incorrect. sent9: the nonparticipant is not a kind of a thump if something that is retroactive is not a Rastafarianism. sent10: there exists something such that it does not foal eyeshadow. sent11: that the ammonification is a thump and is a Rastafarianism is not right if the Skagit is not a thump. sent12: if something is not a behaviorist then it is non-retroactive and it is not a cedilla. sent13: the wrangler is a thump and is a Rastafarianism.
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nonparticipant is not retroactive.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist and it is not retroactive.; sent7 & int2 -> int3: the Skagit is not a kind of a thump.; sent11 & int3 -> int4: that that the ammonification is both a thump and a Rastafarianism is wrong is not wrong.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the wrangler is non-retroactive thing that is not a cedilla.
sent12 -> int5: the wrangler is not retroactive and it is not a cedilla if it is not a kind of a behaviorist.; sent6 -> int6: the wrangler is not a kind of a behaviorist if it is a thump that is a mask.; sent13 -> int7: the fact that the wrangler is a thump is not false.;
$hypothesis$ = if the nonparticipant is not retroactive that the ammonification is a thump and it is a Rastafarianism does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the nonparticipant is a thump and it is a Rastafarianism does not hold if the ammonification is not a behaviorist. sent2: the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist if there exists something such that it does not foal eyeshadow and does not brace. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it does not foal eyeshadow and it does brace is not wrong. sent4: something is not a bracing. sent5: something does not foal eyeshadow and it does not brace. sent6: if a thump masks then it is not a behaviorist. sent7: if the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist and is not retroactive then the Skagit is not a kind of a thump. sent8: the fact that there is something such that it foals eyeshadow and does not brace is not incorrect. sent9: the nonparticipant is not a kind of a thump if something that is retroactive is not a Rastafarianism. sent10: there exists something such that it does not foal eyeshadow. sent11: that the ammonification is a thump and is a Rastafarianism is not right if the Skagit is not a thump. sent12: if something is not a behaviorist then it is non-retroactive and it is not a cedilla. sent13: the wrangler is a thump and is a Rastafarianism. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nonparticipant is not retroactive.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the nonparticipant is not a behaviorist and it is not retroactive.; sent7 & int2 -> int3: the Skagit is not a kind of a thump.; sent11 & int3 -> int4: that that the ammonification is both a thump and a Rastafarianism is wrong is not wrong.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__