the fact that the colostrum is not a descent and does not excrete reciprocality is not true.
sent1: if the signaler is not appendicular then the Goldsmith is not appendicular. sent2: that the colostrum is not a descent and excretes reciprocality is not right. sent3: something that is not a kind of a folks is not a descent and does not stir. sent4: the Goldsmith is a chlorambucil. sent5: the fact that something is both not a Chelyabinsk and not ametabolic is incorrect if it does stir. sent6: the fact that the West is accipitrine but it is not a kind of a chlorambucil is not right if it is not a kind of a stirring. sent7: that the colostrum is not a kind of a descent and does not excrete reciprocality is incorrect if the West stirs. sent8: that the West is accipitrine but it is not a chlorambucil is not right. sent9: if the signaler is either not testamentary or non-appendicular or both then the Goldsmith is not non-appendicular. sent10: if either the West is a folks or it does not excrete reciprocality or both the signaler is a folks. sent11: the signaler is not testamentary and/or is appendicular. sent12: the Goldsmith is a folks if that the West is not accipitrine and it is not a chlorambucil is not correct. sent13: something is not a folks if it is not appendicular. sent14: the Goldsmith is a kind of a folks if the West is accipitrine. sent15: the signaler is not testamentary or is not appendicular or both. sent16: something is a kind of a folks and/or does not excrete reciprocality if it is a descent. sent17: if the West is a kind of a stirring then that the colostrum is a kind of a descent that does not excrete reciprocality is not true. sent18: the fact that the colostrum is not a descent and excretes reciprocality is false if the West does stir. sent19: the fact that the Goldsmith is not accipitrine and not a stirring is not true if it is not appendicular. sent20: something does stir if it is a folks. sent21: if the West stirs that the colostrum does not excrete reciprocality and is not accipitrine does not hold. sent22: the fact that the colostrum is a descent and does not excrete reciprocality is not right. sent23: if the West does not stir then the fact that it is not accipitrine and not a chlorambucil is wrong. sent24: the West does not excrete reciprocality.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the West is not a kind of a stirring.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: that the West is not accipitrine and it is not a chlorambucil is not correct.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the Goldsmith is a folks.; sent13 -> int3: the Goldsmith is not a folks if it is not appendicular.; sent9 & sent15 -> int4: the Goldsmith is not appendicular.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the Goldsmith is not a folks is right.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that the West is a stirring hold.; int7 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the colostrum is not a descent and does not excrete reciprocality.
sent3 -> int8: if the West is not a folks it is not a descent and is not a stirring.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the colostrum is not a descent and does not excrete reciprocality is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the signaler is not appendicular then the Goldsmith is not appendicular. sent2: that the colostrum is not a descent and excretes reciprocality is not right. sent3: something that is not a kind of a folks is not a descent and does not stir. sent4: the Goldsmith is a chlorambucil. sent5: the fact that something is both not a Chelyabinsk and not ametabolic is incorrect if it does stir. sent6: the fact that the West is accipitrine but it is not a kind of a chlorambucil is not right if it is not a kind of a stirring. sent7: that the colostrum is not a kind of a descent and does not excrete reciprocality is incorrect if the West stirs. sent8: that the West is accipitrine but it is not a chlorambucil is not right. sent9: if the signaler is either not testamentary or non-appendicular or both then the Goldsmith is not non-appendicular. sent10: if either the West is a folks or it does not excrete reciprocality or both the signaler is a folks. sent11: the signaler is not testamentary and/or is appendicular. sent12: the Goldsmith is a folks if that the West is not accipitrine and it is not a chlorambucil is not correct. sent13: something is not a folks if it is not appendicular. sent14: the Goldsmith is a kind of a folks if the West is accipitrine. sent15: the signaler is not testamentary or is not appendicular or both. sent16: something is a kind of a folks and/or does not excrete reciprocality if it is a descent. sent17: if the West is a kind of a stirring then that the colostrum is a kind of a descent that does not excrete reciprocality is not true. sent18: the fact that the colostrum is not a descent and excretes reciprocality is false if the West does stir. sent19: the fact that the Goldsmith is not accipitrine and not a stirring is not true if it is not appendicular. sent20: something does stir if it is a folks. sent21: if the West stirs that the colostrum does not excrete reciprocality and is not accipitrine does not hold. sent22: the fact that the colostrum is a descent and does not excrete reciprocality is not right. sent23: if the West does not stir then the fact that it is not accipitrine and not a chlorambucil is wrong. sent24: the West does not excrete reciprocality. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the West is not a kind of a stirring.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: that the West is not accipitrine and it is not a chlorambucil is not correct.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the Goldsmith is a folks.; sent13 -> int3: the Goldsmith is not a folks if it is not appendicular.; sent9 & sent15 -> int4: the Goldsmith is not appendicular.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the Goldsmith is not a folks is right.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that the West is a stirring hold.; int7 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__