the jack-o'-lantern is non-Panamanian.
sent1: something is not a flicker and it does not induce Skagit if it is not a kind of a paternalism. sent2: the jack-o'-lantern is not a Panamanian if that the Cotswold is not metropolitan or it is not omnivorous or both is not true. sent3: if the Cotswold is not a kind of a flicker the jack-o'-lantern is omnivorous a metropolitan. sent4: if the fact that the Skagit is not a flicker is right that the protege induces Skagit and it does flicker is not true. sent5: the fact that the protege does not induce Skagit and flickers is not right if the Skagit does not flickers. sent6: if that the Cotswold does not induce Skagit is not incorrect the protege is not metropolitan. sent7: the Skagit is a flicker if the Cotswold is not a metropolitan. sent8: if the fact that the Cotswold induces Skagit is not false the kickstand is omnivorous. sent9: the protege is a Panamanian and is a kind of a paternalism. sent10: the protege does not induce Skagit and is a flicker. sent11: if something is a metropolitan then it is a kind of a Panamanian. sent12: that the protege does not induce Skagit is not incorrect. sent13: the Skagit does not flicker if the Cotswold is not omnivorous. sent14: if the Cotswold is not a metropolitan the Skagit is not a flicker. sent15: the fact that the protege induces Skagit and is a kind of a flicker is false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the Cotswold is not a metropolitan or it is not omnivorous or both.; assump1 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the Skagit is not a flicker.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fact that the protege does not induce Skagit but it flickers is wrong.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the Cotswold is not metropolitan and/or it is not omnivorous does not hold.; int4 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the jack-o'-lantern is a kind of a Panamanian.
sent11 -> int5: that the jack-o'-lantern is the Panamanian if that the jack-o'-lantern is not non-metropolitan is not false is not incorrect.; sent1 -> int6: the Cotswold is not a kind of a flicker and does not induce Skagit if it is not a paternalism.;
$hypothesis$ = the jack-o'-lantern is non-Panamanian. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a flicker and it does not induce Skagit if it is not a kind of a paternalism. sent2: the jack-o'-lantern is not a Panamanian if that the Cotswold is not metropolitan or it is not omnivorous or both is not true. sent3: if the Cotswold is not a kind of a flicker the jack-o'-lantern is omnivorous a metropolitan. sent4: if the fact that the Skagit is not a flicker is right that the protege induces Skagit and it does flicker is not true. sent5: the fact that the protege does not induce Skagit and flickers is not right if the Skagit does not flickers. sent6: if that the Cotswold does not induce Skagit is not incorrect the protege is not metropolitan. sent7: the Skagit is a flicker if the Cotswold is not a metropolitan. sent8: if the fact that the Cotswold induces Skagit is not false the kickstand is omnivorous. sent9: the protege is a Panamanian and is a kind of a paternalism. sent10: the protege does not induce Skagit and is a flicker. sent11: if something is a metropolitan then it is a kind of a Panamanian. sent12: that the protege does not induce Skagit is not incorrect. sent13: the Skagit does not flicker if the Cotswold is not omnivorous. sent14: if the Cotswold is not a metropolitan the Skagit is not a flicker. sent15: the fact that the protege induces Skagit and is a kind of a flicker is false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the Cotswold is not a metropolitan or it is not omnivorous or both.; assump1 & sent14 & sent13 -> int1: the Skagit is not a flicker.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fact that the protege does not induce Skagit but it flickers is wrong.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the Cotswold is not metropolitan and/or it is not omnivorous does not hold.; int4 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__