the hierarch is a Argusianus.
sent1: the fact that something is not a limeade and it is not unsinkable is incorrect if it is not ducal. sent2: the pickle is not ducal. sent3: if the bap is not ducal that the bookbinder is not ducal and dilapidates self-esteem is not true. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Tractarianism that is steadied is wrong. sent5: there is something such that the fact that that it is not handleless and it is unsinkable is right is not true. sent6: the pannikin does not bind agronomist if there is something such that it is not steadied. sent7: the pannikin is not ducal if the bap does not dilapidate self-esteem and does not bind agronomist. sent8: if the bap does not steady it does not dilapidate self-esteem and it does not bind agronomist. sent9: the pannikin binds agronomist if the cavy is not handleless and it is not unsinkable. sent10: that the cavy is not handleless but it is unsinkable is wrong. sent11: the pannikin does not bind agronomist if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Tractarianism that does steady is not correct. sent12: if the fact that the cavy is not a Argusianus and is ducal is incorrect the hierarch is not a kind of a Argusianus. sent13: if the bap dilapidates self-esteem then the cavy does dilapidates self-esteem. sent14: that the bap is not ducal hold if there is something such that that it is not handleless and not unsinkable does not hold. sent15: the pannikin binds agronomist but it is not ducal if that the cavy dilapidates self-esteem is correct. sent16: if something that is not a lick is not a Tractarianism it is not steadied. sent17: the pannikin does bind agronomist if the cavy is not handleless but unsinkable. sent18: if that the bookbinder is non-ducal thing that dilapidates self-esteem does not hold then the hierarch is a Argusianus.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cavy is not handleless and is not unsinkable.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the pannikin does bind agronomist.; sent4 & sent11 -> int2: the pannikin does not bind agronomist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the cavy is not handleless and it is not unsinkable is not true.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not handleless and it is not unsinkable does not hold.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the bap is not ducal.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: that the bookbinder is not ducal but it does dilapidate self-esteem is not true.; int7 & sent18 -> hypothesis;
that the pannikin is not a kind of a limeade and is sinkable is false.
sent1 -> int8: if the pannikin is not ducal then that it is both not a limeade and not unsinkable does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the hierarch is a Argusianus. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not a limeade and it is not unsinkable is incorrect if it is not ducal. sent2: the pickle is not ducal. sent3: if the bap is not ducal that the bookbinder is not ducal and dilapidates self-esteem is not true. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Tractarianism that is steadied is wrong. sent5: there is something such that the fact that that it is not handleless and it is unsinkable is right is not true. sent6: the pannikin does not bind agronomist if there is something such that it is not steadied. sent7: the pannikin is not ducal if the bap does not dilapidate self-esteem and does not bind agronomist. sent8: if the bap does not steady it does not dilapidate self-esteem and it does not bind agronomist. sent9: the pannikin binds agronomist if the cavy is not handleless and it is not unsinkable. sent10: that the cavy is not handleless but it is unsinkable is wrong. sent11: the pannikin does not bind agronomist if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Tractarianism that does steady is not correct. sent12: if the fact that the cavy is not a Argusianus and is ducal is incorrect the hierarch is not a kind of a Argusianus. sent13: if the bap dilapidates self-esteem then the cavy does dilapidates self-esteem. sent14: that the bap is not ducal hold if there is something such that that it is not handleless and not unsinkable does not hold. sent15: the pannikin binds agronomist but it is not ducal if that the cavy dilapidates self-esteem is correct. sent16: if something that is not a lick is not a Tractarianism it is not steadied. sent17: the pannikin does bind agronomist if the cavy is not handleless but unsinkable. sent18: if that the bookbinder is non-ducal thing that dilapidates self-esteem does not hold then the hierarch is a Argusianus. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cavy is not handleless and is not unsinkable.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the pannikin does bind agronomist.; sent4 & sent11 -> int2: the pannikin does not bind agronomist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the cavy is not handleless and it is not unsinkable is not true.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not handleless and it is not unsinkable does not hold.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the bap is not ducal.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: that the bookbinder is not ducal but it does dilapidate self-esteem is not true.; int7 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__