there exists something such that it is a walk-through.
sent1: if the lithophyte is not nephritic the fact that the vase-fine is not a walk-through and is not a obtuseness is not true. sent2: the comforts is non-biliary if there is something such that that that it does not jumble pinfold and is not a vulture is not false is not right. sent3: that that the lithophyte is not nephritic and/or it is febrile is true does not hold if the cameraman is volcanic. sent4: that the pitch does not jumble pinfold and is not a vulture is not true if the vase-fine is not a kind of a walk-through. sent5: either the comforts is febrile or it does gnaw or both. sent6: if the cameraman is not febrile then the lithophyte is not a vulture or volcanic or both. sent7: the synchroflash is not a microbiologist. sent8: if the lithophyte is not a kind of a obtuseness the fact that the synchroflash does not gluttonize and it is not febrile is not right. sent9: if the synchroflash is a walk-through then the vase-fine is a microbiologist. sent10: if the synchroflash is a obtuseness the stylopodium is a obtuseness. sent11: the stylopodium is a obtuseness if the synchroflash gluttonizes. sent12: there exists something such that that it is not nephritic and it is not a vulture is incorrect. sent13: the comforts jumbles pinfold if the pitch is biliary. sent14: the synchroflash either does gluttonize or is a obtuseness or both if it is not a microbiologist. sent15: the fact that the lithophyte is not nephritic and does jumble pinfold does not hold. sent16: if the vase-fine is a microbiologist that that the stylopodium is not a walk-through and/or it is a obtuseness is correct does not hold. sent17: if the comforts is not biliary then the lithophyte is not nephritic or it is febrile or both. sent18: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a obtuseness and does not gluttonize is wrong. sent19: the cameraman is volcanic if the stylopodium is a obtuseness.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vase-fine is not a walk-through.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the pitch does not jumble pinfold and is not a vulture does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does not jumble pinfold and it is not a vulture is false.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the comforts is not biliary.; int3 & sent17 -> int4: the lithophyte is not nephritic or it is febrile or both.; sent14 & sent7 -> int5: the synchroflash does gluttonize or it is a obtuseness or both.; int5 & sent11 & sent10 -> int6: the stylopodium is a kind of a obtuseness.; sent19 & int6 -> int7: the cameraman is volcanic.; sent3 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the lithophyte is not nephritic and/or it is febrile is false.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the vase-fine is a kind of a walk-through.; int10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a walk-through. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lithophyte is not nephritic the fact that the vase-fine is not a walk-through and is not a obtuseness is not true. sent2: the comforts is non-biliary if there is something such that that that it does not jumble pinfold and is not a vulture is not false is not right. sent3: that that the lithophyte is not nephritic and/or it is febrile is true does not hold if the cameraman is volcanic. sent4: that the pitch does not jumble pinfold and is not a vulture is not true if the vase-fine is not a kind of a walk-through. sent5: either the comforts is febrile or it does gnaw or both. sent6: if the cameraman is not febrile then the lithophyte is not a vulture or volcanic or both. sent7: the synchroflash is not a microbiologist. sent8: if the lithophyte is not a kind of a obtuseness the fact that the synchroflash does not gluttonize and it is not febrile is not right. sent9: if the synchroflash is a walk-through then the vase-fine is a microbiologist. sent10: if the synchroflash is a obtuseness the stylopodium is a obtuseness. sent11: the stylopodium is a obtuseness if the synchroflash gluttonizes. sent12: there exists something such that that it is not nephritic and it is not a vulture is incorrect. sent13: the comforts jumbles pinfold if the pitch is biliary. sent14: the synchroflash either does gluttonize or is a obtuseness or both if it is not a microbiologist. sent15: the fact that the lithophyte is not nephritic and does jumble pinfold does not hold. sent16: if the vase-fine is a microbiologist that that the stylopodium is not a walk-through and/or it is a obtuseness is correct does not hold. sent17: if the comforts is not biliary then the lithophyte is not nephritic or it is febrile or both. sent18: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a obtuseness and does not gluttonize is wrong. sent19: the cameraman is volcanic if the stylopodium is a obtuseness. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vase-fine is not a walk-through.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the pitch does not jumble pinfold and is not a vulture does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it does not jumble pinfold and it is not a vulture is false.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the comforts is not biliary.; int3 & sent17 -> int4: the lithophyte is not nephritic or it is febrile or both.; sent14 & sent7 -> int5: the synchroflash does gluttonize or it is a obtuseness or both.; int5 & sent11 & sent10 -> int6: the stylopodium is a kind of a obtuseness.; sent19 & int6 -> int7: the cameraman is volcanic.; sent3 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the lithophyte is not nephritic and/or it is febrile is false.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the vase-fine is a kind of a walk-through.; int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__