the whiz is bivalent and it does awake if the clearway does not frisk removed.
sent1: the clearway is a kind of a due. sent2: if the fact that the clearway is a due and not a flap is incorrect the fact that the whiz is awake is right. sent3: the fact that if the clearway is due but it is not the flap then that the clearway does frisk removed is not wrong hold. sent4: if the whiz is a kind of a shop that it is bivalent is correct. sent5: the whiz is a beanstalk and it does pique herb. sent6: the whiz is bivalent and it is not non-awake if the clearway does frisk removed. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a downdraft and does not disconnect then the clearway does not shop. sent8: the whiz flaps if the fact that the clearway awakes but it is not a due is wrong. sent9: there is something such that the fact that that it is both not unicameral and not actinomycotic hold does not hold. sent10: the pitchfork does frisk removed. sent11: the saucepot is not a due. sent12: if something is actinomycotic then it is not a downdraft and it does not disconnect. sent13: the fact that the whiz is both due and not a Johnny-jump-up hold if something is not awake. sent14: the clearway flaps and it is a kind of a downdraft if the whiz frisks removed. sent15: the papain is actinomycotic if there is something such that the fact that it is not unicameral and not actinomycotic is not true. sent16: something does not awake if that it is not non-bivalent and/or frisks removed is incorrect. sent17: the whiz is a eft. sent18: the whiz does shop and is a kind of a downdraft.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the clearway is a due that is not a flap.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the clearway frisks removed.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the clearway does not frisk removed.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the clearway is a kind of a due that is not a flap is wrong.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: that the whiz is awake hold.; sent18 -> int5: the whiz shops.; sent4 & int5 -> int6: the whiz is bivalent.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the whiz is bivalent and it does awake.; [assump2] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the whiz is due but it is not a kind of a Johnny-jump-up.
sent16 -> int8: if that the clearway either is bivalent or frisks removed or both is incorrect that it is not awake is not incorrect.; sent12 -> int9: the papain is not a kind of a downdraft and does not disconnect if it is actinomycotic.; sent9 & sent15 -> int10: the papain is actinomycotic.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the papain is not a downdraft and does not disconnect.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is not a downdraft and does not disconnect.; int12 & sent7 -> int13: the clearway is not a shop.;
$hypothesis$ = the whiz is bivalent and it does awake if the clearway does not frisk removed. ; $context$ = sent1: the clearway is a kind of a due. sent2: if the fact that the clearway is a due and not a flap is incorrect the fact that the whiz is awake is right. sent3: the fact that if the clearway is due but it is not the flap then that the clearway does frisk removed is not wrong hold. sent4: if the whiz is a kind of a shop that it is bivalent is correct. sent5: the whiz is a beanstalk and it does pique herb. sent6: the whiz is bivalent and it is not non-awake if the clearway does frisk removed. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not a downdraft and does not disconnect then the clearway does not shop. sent8: the whiz flaps if the fact that the clearway awakes but it is not a due is wrong. sent9: there is something such that the fact that that it is both not unicameral and not actinomycotic hold does not hold. sent10: the pitchfork does frisk removed. sent11: the saucepot is not a due. sent12: if something is actinomycotic then it is not a downdraft and it does not disconnect. sent13: the fact that the whiz is both due and not a Johnny-jump-up hold if something is not awake. sent14: the clearway flaps and it is a kind of a downdraft if the whiz frisks removed. sent15: the papain is actinomycotic if there is something such that the fact that it is not unicameral and not actinomycotic is not true. sent16: something does not awake if that it is not non-bivalent and/or frisks removed is incorrect. sent17: the whiz is a eft. sent18: the whiz does shop and is a kind of a downdraft. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the clearway is a due that is not a flap.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the clearway frisks removed.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the clearway does not frisk removed.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the clearway is a kind of a due that is not a flap is wrong.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: that the whiz is awake hold.; sent18 -> int5: the whiz shops.; sent4 & int5 -> int6: the whiz is bivalent.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the whiz is bivalent and it does awake.; [assump2] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__