the brit is a conenose if the nepotist does dogmatize wording.
sent1: if something is a stout then the fact that it does dogmatize wording is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is non-colorectal thing that determines partita does not hold. sent3: that if there exists something such that that it is not colorectal and it does determine partita is wrong the nepotist is cenobitic is not false. sent4: the man-child is a kind of cenobitic thing that does dogmatize Habakkuk. sent5: something that dogmatizes wording and is cenobitic is not a stout. sent6: the brit is a conenose if the man-child is a stout. sent7: the fact that that the man-child is both not a conenose and not a stout does not hold if the brit is not a stout hold. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not purse Bierce and conforms does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is colorectal and it does determine partita hold is not true. sent10: if the man-child convects and is cenobitic it is not a conenose. sent11: the nepotist convects. sent12: the nepotist is cenobitic if there is something such that the fact that it does not determine partita hold. sent13: the nepotist is not a conenose if a cenobitic thing does dogmatize wording. sent14: if the nepotist is not a stout then the fact that the man-child does not convect but it is a stout does not hold. sent15: if the nepotist is not a kind of a stout the fact that that the man-child does not convect and it is not a kind of a stout is right does not hold. sent16: the brit is a conenose if the fact that the man-child does not convect and is not a stout is not correct. sent17: the fact that the man-child does not convect and is a stout is incorrect. sent18: that the man-child is not cenobitic and it is not a stout does not hold if the nepotist is not a kind of a stout. sent19: something is a kind of non-colorectal thing that does determine partita. sent20: if the brit convects then the man-child is a stout.
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the nepotist is cenobitic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nepotist does dogmatize wording.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the nepotist dogmatizes wording and is cenobitic.; sent5 -> int3: the nepotist is not a stout if it dogmatizes wording and it is cenobitic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the nepotist is not a stout.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: the fact that the man-child does not convect and is not a stout does not hold.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: the brit is a conenose.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the nepotist is not a kind of a conenose.
sent1 -> int7: if the man-child is a stout then it does dogmatize wording.; sent4 -> int8: the man-child is cenobitic.;
$hypothesis$ = the brit is a conenose if the nepotist does dogmatize wording. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a stout then the fact that it does dogmatize wording is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is non-colorectal thing that determines partita does not hold. sent3: that if there exists something such that that it is not colorectal and it does determine partita is wrong the nepotist is cenobitic is not false. sent4: the man-child is a kind of cenobitic thing that does dogmatize Habakkuk. sent5: something that dogmatizes wording and is cenobitic is not a stout. sent6: the brit is a conenose if the man-child is a stout. sent7: the fact that that the man-child is both not a conenose and not a stout does not hold if the brit is not a stout hold. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does not purse Bierce and conforms does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that the fact that the fact that it is colorectal and it does determine partita hold is not true. sent10: if the man-child convects and is cenobitic it is not a conenose. sent11: the nepotist convects. sent12: the nepotist is cenobitic if there is something such that the fact that it does not determine partita hold. sent13: the nepotist is not a conenose if a cenobitic thing does dogmatize wording. sent14: if the nepotist is not a stout then the fact that the man-child does not convect but it is a stout does not hold. sent15: if the nepotist is not a kind of a stout the fact that that the man-child does not convect and it is not a kind of a stout is right does not hold. sent16: the brit is a conenose if the fact that the man-child does not convect and is not a stout is not correct. sent17: the fact that the man-child does not convect and is a stout is incorrect. sent18: that the man-child is not cenobitic and it is not a stout does not hold if the nepotist is not a kind of a stout. sent19: something is a kind of non-colorectal thing that does determine partita. sent20: if the brit convects then the man-child is a stout. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the nepotist is cenobitic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nepotist does dogmatize wording.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the nepotist dogmatizes wording and is cenobitic.; sent5 -> int3: the nepotist is not a stout if it dogmatizes wording and it is cenobitic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the nepotist is not a stout.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: the fact that the man-child does not convect and is not a stout does not hold.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: the brit is a conenose.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__