there is something such that the fact that it is colorimetric and it is not a deferral is wrong.
sent1: if the colonel is not a powderpuff then that that the waffler is a deferral and a weeds is wrong is correct. sent2: the baldachin is a powderpuff. sent3: the fact that the maraschino is not a petitioner but it is a DBA is wrong. sent4: the fact that the baldachin is not a supergiant hold if the fact that the waffler is not a powderpuff and is a petitioner is false. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a Herzberg and it is Homeric. sent6: if the baldachin is a weeds then that the colonel is sadomasochistic but not hungry is not right. sent7: if there exists something such that it is colorimetric and a deferral then the vanadinite is not a petitioner. sent8: that the waffler is a powderpuff and is a kind of a petitioner does not hold. sent9: there is something such that that it is a cyclist and is locomotive is not correct. sent10: if the baldachin is not a kind of a supergiant that the vanadinite is colorimetric but it is not a deferral is not correct. sent11: the colonel is not a weeds if something is a Herzberg and it is Homeric. sent12: the fact that that the colonel is a powderpuff does not hold is not incorrect if something that is a kind of a weeds is colorimetric. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a powderpuff and it is a petitioner the colonel does weed. sent14: there is something such that it is apocryphal. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is colorimetric and it is a deferral is not true. sent16: that the waffler is a supergiant but it is not a petitioner is not right if the baldachin is not a powderpuff.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the waffler is not a kind of a powderpuff but it is a petitioner.; assump1 -> int1: something is both not a powderpuff and a petitioner.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the colonel is a weeds.; sent5 & sent11 -> int3: the colonel does not weed.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the waffler is not a powderpuff but it is a petitioner does not hold.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the baldachin is not a supergiant.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: that the vanadinite is colorimetric but it is not a kind of a deferral is incorrect.; int7 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that the fact that it is sadomasochistic and it is not hungry is wrong.
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that the fact that it is colorimetric and it is not a deferral is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the colonel is not a powderpuff then that that the waffler is a deferral and a weeds is wrong is correct. sent2: the baldachin is a powderpuff. sent3: the fact that the maraschino is not a petitioner but it is a DBA is wrong. sent4: the fact that the baldachin is not a supergiant hold if the fact that the waffler is not a powderpuff and is a petitioner is false. sent5: there is something such that it is a kind of a Herzberg and it is Homeric. sent6: if the baldachin is a weeds then that the colonel is sadomasochistic but not hungry is not right. sent7: if there exists something such that it is colorimetric and a deferral then the vanadinite is not a petitioner. sent8: that the waffler is a powderpuff and is a kind of a petitioner does not hold. sent9: there is something such that that it is a cyclist and is locomotive is not correct. sent10: if the baldachin is not a kind of a supergiant that the vanadinite is colorimetric but it is not a deferral is not correct. sent11: the colonel is not a weeds if something is a Herzberg and it is Homeric. sent12: the fact that that the colonel is a powderpuff does not hold is not incorrect if something that is a kind of a weeds is colorimetric. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a powderpuff and it is a petitioner the colonel does weed. sent14: there is something such that it is apocryphal. sent15: there exists something such that the fact that it is colorimetric and it is a deferral is not true. sent16: that the waffler is a supergiant but it is not a petitioner is not right if the baldachin is not a powderpuff. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the waffler is not a kind of a powderpuff but it is a petitioner.; assump1 -> int1: something is both not a powderpuff and a petitioner.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the colonel is a weeds.; sent5 & sent11 -> int3: the colonel does not weed.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the waffler is not a powderpuff but it is a petitioner does not hold.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the baldachin is not a supergiant.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: that the vanadinite is colorimetric but it is not a kind of a deferral is incorrect.; int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__