the encolure is a kind of a snuff-color.
sent1: there is something such that the fact that it clanks monal is not wrong. sent2: the Mormon does not consort Mormon. sent3: the protectionist is not a snuff-color. sent4: the fact that something does not travesty Prokhorov and it does not clank continuum is not true if it is not a snuff-color. sent5: that the cretonne is a kind of non-light-duty thing that consorts Mormon does not hold if it is not unalert. sent6: something is not unalert if that it does consort Mormon and it is unalert is not true. sent7: the cretonne is not light-duty if the fact that the encolure does not travesty Prokhorov and does not clank continuum is not true. sent8: if the cretonne is not light-duty the protectionist is unalert. sent9: The Mormon does not consort Mormon. sent10: if something that is not unalert is light-duty then it is not a kind of a snuff-color. sent11: the fact that the protectionist consorts Mormon and is unalert is not right if there exists something such that it does not consorts Mormon.
sent4 -> int1: that that the encolure does not travesty Prokhorov and it does not clank continuum is false hold if it is not a snuff-color.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the encolure is not a snuff-color.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the encolure does not travesty Prokhorov and it does not clank continuum does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the cretonne is not light-duty is true.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: that the protectionist is unalert is right.; sent6 -> int5: if that the protectionist does consort Mormon and it is unalert is false then it is not unalert.; sent2 -> int6: something does not consort Mormon.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: that the fact that the protectionist consorts Mormon and it is unalert does not hold is not incorrect.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the protectionist is not unalert.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the encolure is not a snuff-color.
sent10 -> int10: if the encolure is not unalert and is light-duty then it is not a snuff-color.;
$hypothesis$ = the encolure is a kind of a snuff-color. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it clanks monal is not wrong. sent2: the Mormon does not consort Mormon. sent3: the protectionist is not a snuff-color. sent4: the fact that something does not travesty Prokhorov and it does not clank continuum is not true if it is not a snuff-color. sent5: that the cretonne is a kind of non-light-duty thing that consorts Mormon does not hold if it is not unalert. sent6: something is not unalert if that it does consort Mormon and it is unalert is not true. sent7: the cretonne is not light-duty if the fact that the encolure does not travesty Prokhorov and does not clank continuum is not true. sent8: if the cretonne is not light-duty the protectionist is unalert. sent9: The Mormon does not consort Mormon. sent10: if something that is not unalert is light-duty then it is not a kind of a snuff-color. sent11: the fact that the protectionist consorts Mormon and is unalert is not right if there exists something such that it does not consorts Mormon. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: that that the encolure does not travesty Prokhorov and it does not clank continuum is false hold if it is not a snuff-color.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the encolure is not a snuff-color.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the encolure does not travesty Prokhorov and it does not clank continuum does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the cretonne is not light-duty is true.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: that the protectionist is unalert is right.; sent6 -> int5: if that the protectionist does consort Mormon and it is unalert is false then it is not unalert.; sent2 -> int6: something does not consort Mormon.; int6 & sent11 -> int7: that the fact that the protectionist consorts Mormon and it is unalert does not hold is not incorrect.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the protectionist is not unalert.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__