the pruno is not endothermic.
sent1: if something is a waltz the fact that it does not frisk moonflower and is progestational does not hold. sent2: the rule is not non-exclusive. sent3: that the pruno is not an activity and not a waltz does not hold. sent4: something is a kind of non-progestational thing that does not frisk moonflower if it does not waltz. sent5: the fact that the rule does not frisk moonflower and is progestational does not hold. sent6: if something is a waltz the fact that it frisks moonflower and it is not progestational is false. sent7: if a non-progestational thing does not frisk moonflower the pruno is not endothermic. sent8: if the fact that the rule is a waltz is right the fact that it does frisk moonflower and it is not progestational does not hold. sent9: if something is a waltz then the fact that it does not frisk moonflower and it is not progestational does not hold. sent10: the anteater is progestational. sent11: if the rule is a waltz the fact that it does not frisk moonflower and is not non-progestational does not hold. sent12: if the pruno is not progestational then the rule does not frisk moonflower and is not progestational. sent13: the rule is a waltz and an exclusive. sent14: if the pruno is not endothermic it is not progestational.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pruno is non-endothermic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the pruno is not progestational.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the rule does not frisk moonflower and is not progestational.; sent9 -> int3: the fact that the rule does not frisk moonflower and it is not progestational does not hold if it is a waltz.; sent13 -> int4: the rule is a kind of a waltz.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the rule does not frisk moonflower and is not progestational is not true.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the pruno is not endothermic.
sent4 -> int7: the rule is not progestational and it does not frisk moonflower if it is not a kind of a waltz.;
$hypothesis$ = the pruno is not endothermic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a waltz the fact that it does not frisk moonflower and is progestational does not hold. sent2: the rule is not non-exclusive. sent3: that the pruno is not an activity and not a waltz does not hold. sent4: something is a kind of non-progestational thing that does not frisk moonflower if it does not waltz. sent5: the fact that the rule does not frisk moonflower and is progestational does not hold. sent6: if something is a waltz the fact that it frisks moonflower and it is not progestational is false. sent7: if a non-progestational thing does not frisk moonflower the pruno is not endothermic. sent8: if the fact that the rule is a waltz is right the fact that it does frisk moonflower and it is not progestational does not hold. sent9: if something is a waltz then the fact that it does not frisk moonflower and it is not progestational does not hold. sent10: the anteater is progestational. sent11: if the rule is a waltz the fact that it does not frisk moonflower and is not non-progestational does not hold. sent12: if the pruno is not progestational then the rule does not frisk moonflower and is not progestational. sent13: the rule is a waltz and an exclusive. sent14: if the pruno is not endothermic it is not progestational. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pruno is non-endothermic.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the pruno is not progestational.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the rule does not frisk moonflower and is not progestational.; sent9 -> int3: the fact that the rule does not frisk moonflower and it is not progestational does not hold if it is a waltz.; sent13 -> int4: the rule is a kind of a waltz.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the rule does not frisk moonflower and is not progestational is not true.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__