that the monogamist does solemnize interpreter is right.
sent1: something does not solemnize interpreter and does solemnize Galileo if it is a Proterochampsa. sent2: the interpreter does not solemnize Galileo if there is something such that the fact that it does not beware and it is not a razorblade is false. sent3: the feminist is not a Proterochampsa if the plectognath does not beware and it is not a razorblade. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it does not beware and it is a razorblade is false. sent5: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Proterochampsa and it is not a razorblade. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it does not solemnize Galileo is true then that the monogamist does solemnize interpreter and it is a kind of an infernal is correct. sent7: if the plectognath does describe then the fact that the monogamist is not infernal and it is not a kind of a Proterochampsa is wrong. sent8: if the plectognath does not beware and is a razorblade then the feminist is not a Proterochampsa. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a razorblade is not false that the interpreter does not solemnize Galileo is true. sent10: the monogamist is an infernal if there exists something such that it does not solemnize Galileo. sent11: the feminist is a Proterochampsa. sent12: there is something such that it does solemnize Galileo. sent13: if the feminist does solemnize incompatibility then the plectognath does describe.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the plectognath does not beware and is not a razorblade.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the feminist is not a kind of a Proterochampsa.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the plectognath does not beware and it is not a kind of a razorblade is not correct.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that the fact that it does not beware and it is not a razorblade is not right.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the interpreter does not solemnize Galileo.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does not solemnize Galileo.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the monogamist solemnizes interpreter and it is an infernal.; int7 -> hypothesis;
the monogamist does not solemnize interpreter.
sent1 -> int8: the monogamist does not solemnize interpreter but it solemnizes Galileo if it is a Proterochampsa.;
$hypothesis$ = that the monogamist does solemnize interpreter is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not solemnize interpreter and does solemnize Galileo if it is a Proterochampsa. sent2: the interpreter does not solemnize Galileo if there is something such that the fact that it does not beware and it is not a razorblade is false. sent3: the feminist is not a Proterochampsa if the plectognath does not beware and it is not a razorblade. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it does not beware and it is a razorblade is false. sent5: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Proterochampsa and it is not a razorblade. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it does not solemnize Galileo is true then that the monogamist does solemnize interpreter and it is a kind of an infernal is correct. sent7: if the plectognath does describe then the fact that the monogamist is not infernal and it is not a kind of a Proterochampsa is wrong. sent8: if the plectognath does not beware and is a razorblade then the feminist is not a Proterochampsa. sent9: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a razorblade is not false that the interpreter does not solemnize Galileo is true. sent10: the monogamist is an infernal if there exists something such that it does not solemnize Galileo. sent11: the feminist is a Proterochampsa. sent12: there is something such that it does solemnize Galileo. sent13: if the feminist does solemnize incompatibility then the plectognath does describe. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the plectognath does not beware and is not a razorblade.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the feminist is not a kind of a Proterochampsa.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the plectognath does not beware and it is not a kind of a razorblade is not correct.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that the fact that it does not beware and it is not a razorblade is not right.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the interpreter does not solemnize Galileo.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does not solemnize Galileo.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the monogamist solemnizes interpreter and it is an infernal.; int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__