the fact that the sharksucker is a moke and inviolable does not hold.
sent1: if the pantheon is a kind of non-inviolable thing that is a filter the sharksucker is a moke. sent2: that the waterbuck does fracture and is not a filter is not right if it is not a Sparidae. sent3: the fact that the sharksucker is a kind of a moke is not false. sent4: something is not an embryo but it is anabolic. sent5: if the tamarillo is not inviolable the sharksucker is a moke and is inviolable. sent6: the pantheon is a Hellman if the waterbuck is an embryo and it is anabolic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not an embryo and it is anabolic is wrong then the tamarillo is not inviolable. sent8: the tamarillo is not inviolable if there is something such that it is a kind of an embryo. sent9: if the waterbuck is not a kind of an embryo and is anabolic then the pantheon is a Hellman. sent10: the fact that the waterbuck is both an embryo and anabolic is false. sent11: the pantheon is not a Hellman but it does filter. sent12: the waterbuck is not a kind of an embryo and is inviolable. sent13: the waterbuck is not an embryo. sent14: if the tamarillo is not inviolable the sharksucker is a kind of a moke. sent15: the sharksucker is an embryo that is inviolable if the waterbuck is not inviolable. sent16: the pantheon is a filter. sent17: that the Parliamentarian is not non-meiotic and not non-anabolic is true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the waterbuck is not an embryo but it is anabolic.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the pantheon is a Hellman.; sent11 -> int2: the pantheon is not a kind of a Hellman.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the waterbuck is not a kind of an embryo but it is anabolic is not correct.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an embryo but anabolic does not hold.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the tamarillo is not inviolable.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the sharksucker is a moke and inviolable is wrong.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sharksucker is a moke and inviolable does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pantheon is a kind of non-inviolable thing that is a filter the sharksucker is a moke. sent2: that the waterbuck does fracture and is not a filter is not right if it is not a Sparidae. sent3: the fact that the sharksucker is a kind of a moke is not false. sent4: something is not an embryo but it is anabolic. sent5: if the tamarillo is not inviolable the sharksucker is a moke and is inviolable. sent6: the pantheon is a Hellman if the waterbuck is an embryo and it is anabolic. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not an embryo and it is anabolic is wrong then the tamarillo is not inviolable. sent8: the tamarillo is not inviolable if there is something such that it is a kind of an embryo. sent9: if the waterbuck is not a kind of an embryo and is anabolic then the pantheon is a Hellman. sent10: the fact that the waterbuck is both an embryo and anabolic is false. sent11: the pantheon is not a Hellman but it does filter. sent12: the waterbuck is not a kind of an embryo and is inviolable. sent13: the waterbuck is not an embryo. sent14: if the tamarillo is not inviolable the sharksucker is a kind of a moke. sent15: the sharksucker is an embryo that is inviolable if the waterbuck is not inviolable. sent16: the pantheon is a filter. sent17: that the Parliamentarian is not non-meiotic and not non-anabolic is true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the waterbuck is not an embryo but it is anabolic.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the pantheon is a Hellman.; sent11 -> int2: the pantheon is not a kind of a Hellman.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the waterbuck is not a kind of an embryo but it is anabolic is not correct.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an embryo but anabolic does not hold.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the tamarillo is not inviolable.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__