that the brittlebush is dolomitic and it is a ramie is false.
sent1: if that the gallinule does not premeditate stemmatology is correct then that the brittlebush is dolomitic and is a ramie is incorrect. sent2: the Lord does accelerate Diervilla. sent3: something is not a ramie if the fact that it is a gardener or not implacable or both is wrong. sent4: the fact that that the gallinule is a gardener or it is not implacable or both hold is not right if the Lord does not premeditate stemmatology. sent5: the Lord does not accelerate Diervilla if there exists something such that it is a gardener and it premeditates stemmatology. sent6: that the gallinule is a gardener and is not implacable is not wrong. sent7: there is something such that it is dolomitic. sent8: the fact that that something does not accelerate Diervilla but it premeditates stemmatology is true is not correct if it is not dolomitic. sent9: The Diervilla does accelerate Lord.
sent6 -> int1: the fact that the gallinule is a gardener hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gallinule premeditates stemmatology.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the gallinule is a kind of a gardener that premeditates stemmatology hold.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that it is a gardener and premeditates stemmatology.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the Lord does not accelerate Diervilla.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the gallinule does not premeditate stemmatology.; int6 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the gallinule is not a ramie.
sent3 -> int7: if the fact that the gallinule is a gardener and/or it is not implacable is wrong then the fact that it is not a ramie is not incorrect.; sent8 -> int8: the fact that the watchtower does not accelerate Diervilla but it does premeditate stemmatology is incorrect if it is not dolomitic.;
$hypothesis$ = that the brittlebush is dolomitic and it is a ramie is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the gallinule does not premeditate stemmatology is correct then that the brittlebush is dolomitic and is a ramie is incorrect. sent2: the Lord does accelerate Diervilla. sent3: something is not a ramie if the fact that it is a gardener or not implacable or both is wrong. sent4: the fact that that the gallinule is a gardener or it is not implacable or both hold is not right if the Lord does not premeditate stemmatology. sent5: the Lord does not accelerate Diervilla if there exists something such that it is a gardener and it premeditates stemmatology. sent6: that the gallinule is a gardener and is not implacable is not wrong. sent7: there is something such that it is dolomitic. sent8: the fact that that something does not accelerate Diervilla but it premeditates stemmatology is true is not correct if it is not dolomitic. sent9: The Diervilla does accelerate Lord. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the fact that the gallinule is a gardener hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gallinule premeditates stemmatology.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the gallinule is a kind of a gardener that premeditates stemmatology hold.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that it is a gardener and premeditates stemmatology.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the Lord does not accelerate Diervilla.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the gallinule does not premeditate stemmatology.; int6 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__