if the lota is telocentric the store is a whacker.
sent1: if the Hebraist is capable the silage is not capable and it is not a challah. sent2: the store is not atonalistic. sent3: there is something such that it is not a kind of a challah and it is telocentric. sent4: if a non-incapable thing is not a challah that the lota is not telocentric is true. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a determent and not a challah the Hebraist is a whacker. sent6: that that the Hebraist is not a challah but it is not capable does not hold hold. sent7: the store is a whacker if that the Hebraist is not incapable but it is a determent does not hold. sent8: there is something such that it is incapable and it is not a challah. sent9: the lota is not a kind of a determent. sent10: the store is not incapable and not a whacker. sent11: the lota is incapable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lota is telocentric.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Hebraist is capable but it is a determent.; assump2 -> int1: the Hebraist is not incapable.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the silage is not incapable and is not a kind of a challah.; int2 -> int3: something is a kind of capable thing that is not a challah.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the lota is not telocentric.; assump1 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the fact that the Hebraist is not incapable but it is a determent is incorrect.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the store is a kind of a whacker.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the lota is telocentric the store is a whacker. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Hebraist is capable the silage is not capable and it is not a challah. sent2: the store is not atonalistic. sent3: there is something such that it is not a kind of a challah and it is telocentric. sent4: if a non-incapable thing is not a challah that the lota is not telocentric is true. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a determent and not a challah the Hebraist is a whacker. sent6: that that the Hebraist is not a challah but it is not capable does not hold hold. sent7: the store is a whacker if that the Hebraist is not incapable but it is a determent does not hold. sent8: there is something such that it is incapable and it is not a challah. sent9: the lota is not a kind of a determent. sent10: the store is not incapable and not a whacker. sent11: the lota is incapable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lota is telocentric.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Hebraist is capable but it is a determent.; assump2 -> int1: the Hebraist is not incapable.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the silage is not incapable and is not a kind of a challah.; int2 -> int3: something is a kind of capable thing that is not a challah.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the lota is not telocentric.; assump1 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the fact that the Hebraist is not incapable but it is a determent is incorrect.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the store is a kind of a whacker.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__