the fact that the workspace is apopemptic hold.
sent1: if something is not ceramic then the fact that it is non-apopemptic thing that is not autotrophic does not hold. sent2: if something that does spill comb-out does not smock vinegariness that it is not a kind of a ceramic is correct. sent3: if the Hebraist is not autotrophic then the fact that it spills comb-out and does not smock vinegariness is wrong. sent4: the individual does not spill comb-out if that the Hebraist is apopemptic but it does not dilapidate mated does not hold. sent5: the workspace is not apopemptic if the Hebraist spills comb-out. sent6: if something is non-autotrophic then that it does spill comb-out and it does not smock vinegariness is incorrect. sent7: that the individual dilapidates mated and is a kind of a ceramic is not right. sent8: that something does not spill comb-out and it does not smock vinegariness is wrong if it is not autotrophic. sent9: the fact that the workspace is apopemptic and does not dilapidate mated is not correct. sent10: the workspace is not a kind of a ceramic. sent11: if the fact that the individual dilapidates mated but it is not ceramic does not hold then the Hebraist is not autotrophic. sent12: the workspace is not apopemptic if that the Hebraist does not spill comb-out and does not smock vinegariness does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Hebraist spills comb-out and does not smock vinegariness does not hold. sent14: the Hebraist is not ceramic. sent15: the Hebraist is a kind of a ascolichen. sent16: the individual is a ceramic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the individual does dilapidate mated and is not a kind of a ceramic.; assump1 -> int1: the individual is not a kind of a ceramic.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the individual does dilapidate mated and is not a kind of a ceramic is false.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the Hebraist is not autotrophic.; sent8 -> int5: if the Hebraist is not autotrophic that it does not spill comb-out and does not smock vinegariness is incorrect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the Hebraist does not spill comb-out and it does not smock vinegariness is not correct.; int6 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the secretary is autotrophic.
sent2 -> int7: if the secretary spills comb-out and does not smock vinegariness it is not ceramic.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the workspace is apopemptic hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not ceramic then the fact that it is non-apopemptic thing that is not autotrophic does not hold. sent2: if something that does spill comb-out does not smock vinegariness that it is not a kind of a ceramic is correct. sent3: if the Hebraist is not autotrophic then the fact that it spills comb-out and does not smock vinegariness is wrong. sent4: the individual does not spill comb-out if that the Hebraist is apopemptic but it does not dilapidate mated does not hold. sent5: the workspace is not apopemptic if the Hebraist spills comb-out. sent6: if something is non-autotrophic then that it does spill comb-out and it does not smock vinegariness is incorrect. sent7: that the individual dilapidates mated and is a kind of a ceramic is not right. sent8: that something does not spill comb-out and it does not smock vinegariness is wrong if it is not autotrophic. sent9: the fact that the workspace is apopemptic and does not dilapidate mated is not correct. sent10: the workspace is not a kind of a ceramic. sent11: if the fact that the individual dilapidates mated but it is not ceramic does not hold then the Hebraist is not autotrophic. sent12: the workspace is not apopemptic if that the Hebraist does not spill comb-out and does not smock vinegariness does not hold. sent13: the fact that the Hebraist spills comb-out and does not smock vinegariness does not hold. sent14: the Hebraist is not ceramic. sent15: the Hebraist is a kind of a ascolichen. sent16: the individual is a ceramic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the individual does dilapidate mated and is not a kind of a ceramic.; assump1 -> int1: the individual is not a kind of a ceramic.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the individual does dilapidate mated and is not a kind of a ceramic is false.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the Hebraist is not autotrophic.; sent8 -> int5: if the Hebraist is not autotrophic that it does not spill comb-out and does not smock vinegariness is incorrect.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the Hebraist does not spill comb-out and it does not smock vinegariness is not correct.; int6 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__