the Bakelite is not non-incendiary.
sent1: that that the multivitamin is a kind of a brunet that roughens milk is not wrong is incorrect. sent2: if the background does roughen milk then that the multivitamin skids Putin hold. sent3: the Bakelite is a kind of an incendiary if it is a brunet. sent4: that the background does skid Putin is correct if the fact that it is not a brunet and it is a couverture does not hold. sent5: the fact that the porker empties does not hold. sent6: the fact that something is not a couverture and it is not brunet is not right if it does not skid Putin. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not empty the widow extricates roper and/or it does skid Putin. sent8: if the background does skid Putin the Bakelite is incendiary. sent9: if the multivitamin is a couverture then it roughens milk. sent10: The milk does not roughen multivitamin. sent11: if the fact that the background is not contralateral but it is an incendiary does not hold it skids omnirange. sent12: the background does skid Petauristidae. sent13: the multivitamin does not roughen milk. sent14: the background does roughen milk. sent15: that the multivitamin is not a couverture hold. sent16: if the multivitamin skids Putin then the background roughens milk. sent17: the multivitamin roughens milk if the background is a kind of a couverture. sent18: if the background is an incendiary the Bakelite is a couverture. sent19: the multivitamin is not incendiary.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the background is a kind of non-brunet thing that is a couverture.; assump1 -> int1: the background is a kind of a couverture.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the multivitamin roughens milk.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the background is not a brunet but it is a couverture is false.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the background skids Putin.; int5 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the Bakelite is not an incendiary.
sent5 -> int6: there is something such that it does not empty.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the widow either does extricate roper or does skid Putin or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the Bakelite is not non-incendiary. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the multivitamin is a kind of a brunet that roughens milk is not wrong is incorrect. sent2: if the background does roughen milk then that the multivitamin skids Putin hold. sent3: the Bakelite is a kind of an incendiary if it is a brunet. sent4: that the background does skid Putin is correct if the fact that it is not a brunet and it is a couverture does not hold. sent5: the fact that the porker empties does not hold. sent6: the fact that something is not a couverture and it is not brunet is not right if it does not skid Putin. sent7: if there exists something such that it does not empty the widow extricates roper and/or it does skid Putin. sent8: if the background does skid Putin the Bakelite is incendiary. sent9: if the multivitamin is a couverture then it roughens milk. sent10: The milk does not roughen multivitamin. sent11: if the fact that the background is not contralateral but it is an incendiary does not hold it skids omnirange. sent12: the background does skid Petauristidae. sent13: the multivitamin does not roughen milk. sent14: the background does roughen milk. sent15: that the multivitamin is not a couverture hold. sent16: if the multivitamin skids Putin then the background roughens milk. sent17: the multivitamin roughens milk if the background is a kind of a couverture. sent18: if the background is an incendiary the Bakelite is a couverture. sent19: the multivitamin is not incendiary. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the background is a kind of non-brunet thing that is a couverture.; assump1 -> int1: the background is a kind of a couverture.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the multivitamin roughens milk.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the background is not a brunet but it is a couverture is false.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the background skids Putin.; int5 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__