the gangplank is not a kind of a antimetabolite.
sent1: the fan disobliges promiscuity. sent2: if the gangplank is not a antimetabolite and does disoblige promiscuity then the souther is technological. sent3: the gangplank is not a antimetabolite if it is not technological. sent4: there is nothing such that it does not variegate jamming and disobliges promiscuity. sent5: if the souther disobliges promiscuity then the fan does not variegate jamming but it does disobliges promiscuity. sent6: the souther does disoblige promiscuity if the gangplank is non-outer thing that is technological. sent7: if the souther disobliges promiscuity then the fan disobliges promiscuity. sent8: the gangplank is a antimetabolite if the souther does not disoblige promiscuity but it variegates jamming. sent9: if something is not technological it is not a antimetabolite. sent10: the fact that if that something is not outer but it is technological is not correct it is not a antimetabolite hold. sent11: if something is a kind of a marc it is nonpsychoactive. sent12: the gangplank is not non-technological. sent13: if something is nonpsychoactive it does not disoblige promiscuity and does variegate jamming.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gangplank is not outer but it is technological.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the souther does disoblige promiscuity.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fan does not variegate jamming but it does disoblige promiscuity.; sent4 -> int3: that the fan does not variegate jamming and disobliges promiscuity is wrong.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the gangplank is not outer but it is technological is wrong.; sent10 -> int6: the gangplank is not a antimetabolite if that it is not outer and is technological does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> hypothesis;
the gangplank is a antimetabolite.
sent13 -> int7: the souther does not disoblige promiscuity but it does variegate jamming if it is not psychoactive.; sent11 -> int8: if the souther is a marc it is nonpsychoactive.;
$hypothesis$ = the gangplank is not a kind of a antimetabolite. ; $context$ = sent1: the fan disobliges promiscuity. sent2: if the gangplank is not a antimetabolite and does disoblige promiscuity then the souther is technological. sent3: the gangplank is not a antimetabolite if it is not technological. sent4: there is nothing such that it does not variegate jamming and disobliges promiscuity. sent5: if the souther disobliges promiscuity then the fan does not variegate jamming but it does disobliges promiscuity. sent6: the souther does disoblige promiscuity if the gangplank is non-outer thing that is technological. sent7: if the souther disobliges promiscuity then the fan disobliges promiscuity. sent8: the gangplank is a antimetabolite if the souther does not disoblige promiscuity but it variegates jamming. sent9: if something is not technological it is not a antimetabolite. sent10: the fact that if that something is not outer but it is technological is not correct it is not a antimetabolite hold. sent11: if something is a kind of a marc it is nonpsychoactive. sent12: the gangplank is not non-technological. sent13: if something is nonpsychoactive it does not disoblige promiscuity and does variegate jamming. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gangplank is not outer but it is technological.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the souther does disoblige promiscuity.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the fan does not variegate jamming but it does disoblige promiscuity.; sent4 -> int3: that the fan does not variegate jamming and disobliges promiscuity is wrong.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the gangplank is not outer but it is technological is wrong.; sent10 -> int6: the gangplank is not a antimetabolite if that it is not outer and is technological does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__