that the cutin is inconsolable and is a hubcap is wrong.
sent1: the fact that the cutin is inconsolable and is a hubcap is incorrect if the spill is not inconsolable. sent2: something that is limbic is not a Vlaminck. sent3: if the horse-pistol is not a man-child it is a kind of limbic thing that is a kind of a house. sent4: the cutin is a kind of a Vlaminck and is inconsolable. sent5: the horse-pistol is not a man-child. sent6: if something crooks scolopendrium then it is minor. sent7: that the spill is not a kind of a firewall and it does not cancel scanning is wrong if it is inconsolable. sent8: the fact that the horse-pistol is a kind of a Vlaminck hold if the fact that it is minor is not wrong. sent9: the horse-pistol does crook scolopendrium if the fact that the spill is not a firewall and it does not cancel scanning is not correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spill is inconsolable.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: that the spill is not a firewall and it does not cancel scanning does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the horse-pistol does crook scolopendrium is right.; sent6 -> int3: if the fact that the horse-pistol does crook scolopendrium is not wrong then it is minor.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the horse-pistol is minor.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the horse-pistol is a Vlaminck.; sent2 -> int6: if the horse-pistol is limbic it is not a kind of a Vlaminck.; sent3 & sent5 -> int7: the horse-pistol is limbic and is a kind of a house.; int7 -> int8: the horse-pistol is limbic.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the horse-pistol is not a Vlaminck.; int5 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the spill is not inconsolable.; int11 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the cutin is a kind of inconsolable a hubcap.
sent4 -> int12: the cutin is inconsolable.;
$hypothesis$ = that the cutin is inconsolable and is a hubcap is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the cutin is inconsolable and is a hubcap is incorrect if the spill is not inconsolable. sent2: something that is limbic is not a Vlaminck. sent3: if the horse-pistol is not a man-child it is a kind of limbic thing that is a kind of a house. sent4: the cutin is a kind of a Vlaminck and is inconsolable. sent5: the horse-pistol is not a man-child. sent6: if something crooks scolopendrium then it is minor. sent7: that the spill is not a kind of a firewall and it does not cancel scanning is wrong if it is inconsolable. sent8: the fact that the horse-pistol is a kind of a Vlaminck hold if the fact that it is minor is not wrong. sent9: the horse-pistol does crook scolopendrium if the fact that the spill is not a firewall and it does not cancel scanning is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spill is inconsolable.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: that the spill is not a firewall and it does not cancel scanning does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the horse-pistol does crook scolopendrium is right.; sent6 -> int3: if the fact that the horse-pistol does crook scolopendrium is not wrong then it is minor.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the horse-pistol is minor.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the horse-pistol is a Vlaminck.; sent2 -> int6: if the horse-pistol is limbic it is not a kind of a Vlaminck.; sent3 & sent5 -> int7: the horse-pistol is limbic and is a kind of a house.; int7 -> int8: the horse-pistol is limbic.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the horse-pistol is not a Vlaminck.; int5 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the spill is not inconsolable.; int11 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__