the nationalist is not full-time.
sent1: something is not an intellectual. sent2: if the fact that the melanoblast sours but it is not a sweeper does not hold the fact that the neptunium is not a kind of a sweeper is true. sent3: something that is not a sweeper either is penicillin-resistant or fudges enthusiast or both. sent4: the nationalist is not a kind of a labor. sent5: the nationalist is a kind of an accident. sent6: if that the melanoblast is a posology that does not ruin is not correct then it is profaned. sent7: the ubiquinone is a props if the magnesium is a props. sent8: if there are non-intellectual things then that the melanoblast is a posology but it does not ruin is wrong. sent9: something is full-time if it is penicillin-resistant. sent10: if the nationalist is not penicillin-resistant it is a kind of an accident and it is a labor. sent11: if something is not non-profaned then that it is a souring and it is not a sweeper is not right. sent12: the magnesium is insincere a props.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nationalist is not penicillin-resistant.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the nationalist is both an accident and a labor.; int1 -> int2: the nationalist labors.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the nationalist is penicillin-resistant is not wrong.; sent9 -> int5: if the nationalist is penicillin-resistant it is full-time.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the nationalist is not full-time.
sent12 -> int6: the magnesium props.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the ubiquinone props.; sent3 -> int8: if the neptunium is not a kind of a sweeper then it is penicillin-resistant and/or it does fudge enthusiast.; sent11 -> int9: the fact that the melanoblast sours and is not a sweeper is not true if it is profaned.; sent1 & sent8 -> int10: the fact that the melanoblast is a kind of a posology that is not a ruin is incorrect.; sent6 & int10 -> int11: the melanoblast is profaned.; int9 & int11 -> int12: that the melanoblast sours but it is not a sweeper is incorrect.; sent2 & int12 -> int13: the neptunium is not a sweeper.; int8 & int13 -> int14: either the neptunium is penicillin-resistant or it fudges enthusiast or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the nationalist is not full-time. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not an intellectual. sent2: if the fact that the melanoblast sours but it is not a sweeper does not hold the fact that the neptunium is not a kind of a sweeper is true. sent3: something that is not a sweeper either is penicillin-resistant or fudges enthusiast or both. sent4: the nationalist is not a kind of a labor. sent5: the nationalist is a kind of an accident. sent6: if that the melanoblast is a posology that does not ruin is not correct then it is profaned. sent7: the ubiquinone is a props if the magnesium is a props. sent8: if there are non-intellectual things then that the melanoblast is a posology but it does not ruin is wrong. sent9: something is full-time if it is penicillin-resistant. sent10: if the nationalist is not penicillin-resistant it is a kind of an accident and it is a labor. sent11: if something is not non-profaned then that it is a souring and it is not a sweeper is not right. sent12: the magnesium is insincere a props. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nationalist is not penicillin-resistant.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the nationalist is both an accident and a labor.; int1 -> int2: the nationalist labors.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the nationalist is penicillin-resistant is not wrong.; sent9 -> int5: if the nationalist is penicillin-resistant it is full-time.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__