the skipjack is not a exocrine if the annoyance is a pentode and is not calisthenic.
sent1: if the skipjack is not a pentode the annoyance is not exocrine. sent2: that something officiates and is not nonfinancial hold. sent3: the fact that the skipjack is not calisthenic is not false. sent4: the skipjack is not calisthenic if the annoyance is not a kind of a exocrine. sent5: if the annoyance is calisthenic the skipjack is not a exocrine. sent6: the annoyance is a pentode. sent7: the annoyance is a pentode and exocrine if the skipjack does not relieve. sent8: if something is a openbill then it either is humic or does not relieve or both. sent9: if the annoyance is a pentode and it is calisthenic then the skipjack is not a kind of a exocrine. sent10: if something is not flaky it is a openbill that does not suggest Demetrius. sent11: the handcar is not a kind of a pentode if the annoyance is not calisthenic or it is a pentode or both. sent12: the pamphleteer is calceolate but it is not a exocrine. sent13: if the annoyance is not calisthenic then the skipjack is not a exocrine. sent14: the skipjack is a kind of a exocrine if the annoyance is a pentode but it is not calisthenic. sent15: if that the monogamist is not a openbill is not right the draft is a openbill. sent16: the skipjack is a exocrine if the annoyance is not calisthenic. sent17: if something that officiates is not nonfinancial the monogamist is non-flaky.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the annoyance is a pentode that is not calisthenic.; assump1 -> int1: the annoyance is not calisthenic.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: that the skipjack is not exocrine is not false.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;
the handcar is not a kind of a pentode.
sent8 -> int3: if the draft is a openbill then it is humic or it does not relieve or both.; sent10 -> int4: the monogamist is a openbill and does not suggest Demetrius if the fact that it is not flaky is correct.; sent2 & sent17 -> int5: the fact that the monogamist is non-flaky is right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the monogamist is a openbill but it does not suggest Demetrius.; int6 -> int7: the monogamist is a kind of a openbill.; sent15 & int7 -> int8: the draft is a openbill.; int3 & int8 -> int9: the draft is humic or does not relieve or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the skipjack is not a exocrine if the annoyance is a pentode and is not calisthenic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skipjack is not a pentode the annoyance is not exocrine. sent2: that something officiates and is not nonfinancial hold. sent3: the fact that the skipjack is not calisthenic is not false. sent4: the skipjack is not calisthenic if the annoyance is not a kind of a exocrine. sent5: if the annoyance is calisthenic the skipjack is not a exocrine. sent6: the annoyance is a pentode. sent7: the annoyance is a pentode and exocrine if the skipjack does not relieve. sent8: if something is a openbill then it either is humic or does not relieve or both. sent9: if the annoyance is a pentode and it is calisthenic then the skipjack is not a kind of a exocrine. sent10: if something is not flaky it is a openbill that does not suggest Demetrius. sent11: the handcar is not a kind of a pentode if the annoyance is not calisthenic or it is a pentode or both. sent12: the pamphleteer is calceolate but it is not a exocrine. sent13: if the annoyance is not calisthenic then the skipjack is not a exocrine. sent14: the skipjack is a kind of a exocrine if the annoyance is a pentode but it is not calisthenic. sent15: if that the monogamist is not a openbill is not right the draft is a openbill. sent16: the skipjack is a exocrine if the annoyance is not calisthenic. sent17: if something that officiates is not nonfinancial the monogamist is non-flaky. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the annoyance is a pentode that is not calisthenic.; assump1 -> int1: the annoyance is not calisthenic.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: that the skipjack is not exocrine is not false.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__