the fact that the capsicum does not preempt chemistry but it is consistent does not hold.
sent1: there is something such that it is not a fecklessness and/or it is not a trustbuster. sent2: if something preempts chemistry it is consistent. sent3: if the Fijian is not consistent then the fact that the capsicum does not preempt chemistry and is consistent is incorrect. sent4: the Fijian is not consistent if something is not a fecklessness and/or it is not a kind of a trustbuster. sent5: the fact that something is not a fecklessness but it is a kind of a Okeechobee does not hold if it is consistent.
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Fijian is not consistent.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;
that the changer is not a kind of a fecklessness but it is a Okeechobee is wrong.
sent2 -> int2: that the Fijian is not consistent is false if it preempts chemistry.; sent5 -> int3: that the Fijian is not a fecklessness but it is a kind of a Okeechobee is incorrect if it is consistent.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the capsicum does not preempt chemistry but it is consistent does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a fecklessness and/or it is not a trustbuster. sent2: if something preempts chemistry it is consistent. sent3: if the Fijian is not consistent then the fact that the capsicum does not preempt chemistry and is consistent is incorrect. sent4: the Fijian is not consistent if something is not a fecklessness and/or it is not a kind of a trustbuster. sent5: the fact that something is not a fecklessness but it is a kind of a Okeechobee does not hold if it is consistent. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the Fijian is not consistent.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__