that the catapult is not a Centrolobium and it does not idealize dinnerware is wrong.
sent1: if there exists something such that that it does feather and it idealizes superstructure is false then the catapult is a bowls. sent2: that the catapult is a kind of a Centrolobium that does not idealize dinnerware is not true. sent3: something is not Bismarckian if it is a reciprocal and it is episcopal. sent4: the roble is a reciprocal. sent5: the fact that the aculeus does feather and idealizes superstructure is not true if the nostoc does not subside maroon. sent6: the fact that something is not a Centrolobium but it idealizes dinnerware is false if it is a bowls. sent7: there is something such that it is not inoffensive. sent8: if something does bowl the fact that it is not a Centrolobium and it does not idealize dinnerware is not correct. sent9: the catapult does bowl if there is something such that it does not idealize superstructure. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not inoffensive the roble is a reciprocal and it is episcopal. sent11: if that the dinnerware is an egoism is not wrong the roble is Bismarckian. sent12: the roble is a kind of a reciprocal if there is something such that that it is not inoffensive hold. sent13: the dinnerware is an egoism if the nostoc does subside maroon. sent14: the fact that the catapult is not a Centrolobium and idealizes dinnerware is false if it is a kind of a bowls. sent15: the fact that the catapult is a Centrolobium that does not idealize dinnerware is not true if it is a kind of a bowls.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nostoc subsides maroon.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the dinnerware is an egoism is not incorrect.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the roble is Bismarckian.; sent3 -> int3: if the roble is a reciprocal and it is episcopal then that it is not Bismarckian hold.; sent7 & sent10 -> int4: the roble is a reciprocal and is episcopal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the roble is not Bismarckian.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the nostoc does not subside maroon.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the fact that the aculeus is a kind of a feather that does idealize superstructure does not hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that the fact that it is a feather and idealizes superstructure is false.; int9 & sent1 -> int10: that the catapult does bowl hold.; sent8 -> int11: if the catapult bowls then the fact that it is not a Centrolobium and it does not idealize dinnerware is not right.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the catapult is not a Centrolobium and it does not idealize dinnerware is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that that it does feather and it idealizes superstructure is false then the catapult is a bowls. sent2: that the catapult is a kind of a Centrolobium that does not idealize dinnerware is not true. sent3: something is not Bismarckian if it is a reciprocal and it is episcopal. sent4: the roble is a reciprocal. sent5: the fact that the aculeus does feather and idealizes superstructure is not true if the nostoc does not subside maroon. sent6: the fact that something is not a Centrolobium but it idealizes dinnerware is false if it is a bowls. sent7: there is something such that it is not inoffensive. sent8: if something does bowl the fact that it is not a Centrolobium and it does not idealize dinnerware is not correct. sent9: the catapult does bowl if there is something such that it does not idealize superstructure. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not inoffensive the roble is a reciprocal and it is episcopal. sent11: if that the dinnerware is an egoism is not wrong the roble is Bismarckian. sent12: the roble is a kind of a reciprocal if there is something such that that it is not inoffensive hold. sent13: the dinnerware is an egoism if the nostoc does subside maroon. sent14: the fact that the catapult is not a Centrolobium and idealizes dinnerware is false if it is a kind of a bowls. sent15: the fact that the catapult is a Centrolobium that does not idealize dinnerware is not true if it is a kind of a bowls. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nostoc subsides maroon.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the dinnerware is an egoism is not incorrect.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the roble is Bismarckian.; sent3 -> int3: if the roble is a reciprocal and it is episcopal then that it is not Bismarckian hold.; sent7 & sent10 -> int4: the roble is a reciprocal and is episcopal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the roble is not Bismarckian.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the nostoc does not subside maroon.; int7 & sent5 -> int8: the fact that the aculeus is a kind of a feather that does idealize superstructure does not hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that the fact that it is a feather and idealizes superstructure is false.; int9 & sent1 -> int10: that the catapult does bowl hold.; sent8 -> int11: if the catapult bowls then the fact that it is not a Centrolobium and it does not idealize dinnerware is not right.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__