there is something such that if it is elocutionary it does not sophisticate sawhorse.
sent1: the Kurdistan is unselfish. sent2: something is not a label but directional. sent3: the foulard is a kind of a Bedouin and it is a Andorran if something does not drape transition. sent4: if something is a kind of a voussoir and is elocutionary then it does not sophisticate sawhorse. sent5: the boudoir sophisticates sawhorse. sent6: if there is something such that that it is unselfish is not incorrect then the Mead does not drape transition. sent7: the tinter is dishonest if there exists something such that it is not a label and it is directional. sent8: the Roquefort is a voussoir. sent9: the Roquefort is not a gasman. sent10: the demitasse is not elocutionary if it is both Modern and a hematochrome. sent11: if that the Roquefort is not non-elocutionary hold then it sophisticates sawhorse. sent12: that the tinter does not drape supermom and is seedless is not correct if it is dishonest. sent13: the instructions is fractional if there exists something such that that it is not fractional and does not sophisticate sawhorse is false. sent14: the Roquefort does sophisticate sawhorse. sent15: that something is non-fractional and it does not sophisticate sawhorse is false if that it is not a kind of a dicumarol is not false. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it does not drape supermom and is seedless is not right then the petrolatum is not a dicumarol. sent17: there is something such that if it is elocutionary it sophisticates sawhorse. sent18: something sophisticates sawhorse if it is both a voussoir and elocutionary. sent19: the instructions is elocutionary and is a kind of a voussoir if the Roquefort is not a kind of a Michaelmastide.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Roquefort is elocutionary.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the Roquefort is a voussoir that is elocutionary.; sent4 -> int2: if the Roquefort is a voussoir and is elocutionary then it does not sophisticate sawhorse.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Roquefort does not sophisticate sawhorse.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the Roquefort does not sophisticate sawhorse if the fact that it is elocutionary is true.; int4 -> hypothesis;
the instructions is both elocutionary and fractional.
sent1 -> int5: there exists something such that it is unselfish.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the Mead does not drape transition.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it does not drape transition.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the foulard is a kind of a Bedouin that is a Andorran.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is a Bedouin and it is Andorran.; sent15 -> int10: if the petrolatum is not a dicumarol that it is non-fractional thing that does not sophisticate sawhorse is not right.; sent2 & sent7 -> int11: the tinter is dishonest.; sent12 & int11 -> int12: that the tinter does not drape supermom and is seedless does not hold.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that that it does not drape supermom and is seedless is incorrect.; int13 & sent16 -> int14: the petrolatum is not a kind of a dicumarol.; int10 & int14 -> int15: that the petrolatum is non-fractional thing that does not sophisticate sawhorse is not right.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that the fact that it is non-fractional thing that does not sophisticate sawhorse is not true.; int16 & sent13 -> int17: the instructions is fractional.;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is elocutionary it does not sophisticate sawhorse. ; $context$ = sent1: the Kurdistan is unselfish. sent2: something is not a label but directional. sent3: the foulard is a kind of a Bedouin and it is a Andorran if something does not drape transition. sent4: if something is a kind of a voussoir and is elocutionary then it does not sophisticate sawhorse. sent5: the boudoir sophisticates sawhorse. sent6: if there is something such that that it is unselfish is not incorrect then the Mead does not drape transition. sent7: the tinter is dishonest if there exists something such that it is not a label and it is directional. sent8: the Roquefort is a voussoir. sent9: the Roquefort is not a gasman. sent10: the demitasse is not elocutionary if it is both Modern and a hematochrome. sent11: if that the Roquefort is not non-elocutionary hold then it sophisticates sawhorse. sent12: that the tinter does not drape supermom and is seedless is not correct if it is dishonest. sent13: the instructions is fractional if there exists something such that that it is not fractional and does not sophisticate sawhorse is false. sent14: the Roquefort does sophisticate sawhorse. sent15: that something is non-fractional and it does not sophisticate sawhorse is false if that it is not a kind of a dicumarol is not false. sent16: if there is something such that the fact that it does not drape supermom and is seedless is not right then the petrolatum is not a dicumarol. sent17: there is something such that if it is elocutionary it sophisticates sawhorse. sent18: something sophisticates sawhorse if it is both a voussoir and elocutionary. sent19: the instructions is elocutionary and is a kind of a voussoir if the Roquefort is not a kind of a Michaelmastide. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Roquefort is elocutionary.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the Roquefort is a voussoir that is elocutionary.; sent4 -> int2: if the Roquefort is a voussoir and is elocutionary then it does not sophisticate sawhorse.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Roquefort does not sophisticate sawhorse.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the Roquefort does not sophisticate sawhorse if the fact that it is elocutionary is true.; int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__