the fact that the bubbler is a noncandidate but it does not obsess does not hold.
sent1: the bubbler does tarnish pronged if it is a noncandidate and does not obsess. sent2: that something does tarnish pronged but it does not price alveolus is wrong if it is a kind of a Mongol. sent3: the bubbler is a noncandidate. sent4: the bubbler does capture and does not tarnish pronged. sent5: something that is not a capture tarnishes pronged and is not an appeal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bubbler is a noncandidate but it does not obsess.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the bubbler tarnishes pronged.; sent4 -> int2: the bubbler does not tarnish pronged.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the babies'-breath tarnishes pronged but it is not a kind of an appeal.
sent5 -> int4: if the fact that the babies'-breath does not capture is not wrong then it does tarnish pronged and does not appeal.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the bubbler is a noncandidate but it does not obsess does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the bubbler does tarnish pronged if it is a noncandidate and does not obsess. sent2: that something does tarnish pronged but it does not price alveolus is wrong if it is a kind of a Mongol. sent3: the bubbler is a noncandidate. sent4: the bubbler does capture and does not tarnish pronged. sent5: something that is not a capture tarnishes pronged and is not an appeal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bubbler is a noncandidate but it does not obsess.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the bubbler tarnishes pronged.; sent4 -> int2: the bubbler does not tarnish pronged.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__