if the stone eulogizes Skagit then the man-of-war does eulogize rococo.
sent1: the fact that something is not a sprawl and does eulogize rococo is wrong if it does not eulogize Skagit. sent2: if the stone does not eulogize Skagit but it is tangential then the man-of-war eulogizes rococo. sent3: the fact that the pilus is non-tangential thing that is not planktonic does not hold if that the stone is not a Interlingua is not false. sent4: if the stone eulogizes rococo then the man-of-war does eulogize Skagit. sent5: the fact that the fact that the man-of-war does not eulogize rococo but it does eulogize Skagit does not hold is right. sent6: the stone is not tangential. sent7: the stone eulogizes rococo if the man-of-war does eulogize Skagit. sent8: the stone is not a Interlingua if the man-of-war is not a safebreaker and is not anasarcous. sent9: the stone is desirous. sent10: that the man-of-war is a kind of an overburden is correct. sent11: that the stone eulogizes Skagit and it is tangential is not right. sent12: if the fact that something is not tangential and is not planktonic is not true then it does not eulogize Skagit. sent13: the stone does eulogize omeprazole. sent14: if the cloveroot is aboral then it is a midway and it is not a pearlfish. sent15: if the fact that the stone does not eulogize Skagit and is tangential does not hold then the man-of-war eulogizes rococo. sent16: something is not a safebreaker but non-anasarcous if the fact that it is not incoherent is not false. sent17: the man-of-war is not tangential. sent18: the cloveroot is aboral. sent19: if the cloveroot is a kind of non-nonsubmersible thing that is not incoherent then the man-of-war is not incoherent. sent20: if a midway is not a pearlfish that it is not nonsubmersible is true. sent21: the stone does not eulogize rococo but it eulogizes Skagit.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the stone does not eulogize Skagit but it is tangential.; assump2 -> int1: the fact that the stone does not eulogize Skagit is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the stone does eulogize Skagit is correct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the stone does not eulogize Skagit and is tangential is wrong.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the man-of-war does eulogize rococo.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
that the pilus does not sprawl but it eulogizes rococo is not right.
sent1 -> int5: that the pilus does not sprawl and does eulogize rococo is wrong if it does not eulogize Skagit.; sent12 -> int6: if that the pilus is a kind of non-tangential thing that is not planktonic is not right then it does not eulogize Skagit.; sent16 -> int7: the man-of-war is not a safebreaker and is not anasarcous if it is not incoherent.; sent20 -> int8: if the cloveroot is a midway but it is not a pearlfish it is not nonsubmersible.; sent14 & sent18 -> int9: the cloveroot is a kind of a midway but it is not a pearlfish.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the cloveroot is not nonsubmersible.;
$hypothesis$ = if the stone eulogizes Skagit then the man-of-war does eulogize rococo. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not a sprawl and does eulogize rococo is wrong if it does not eulogize Skagit. sent2: if the stone does not eulogize Skagit but it is tangential then the man-of-war eulogizes rococo. sent3: the fact that the pilus is non-tangential thing that is not planktonic does not hold if that the stone is not a Interlingua is not false. sent4: if the stone eulogizes rococo then the man-of-war does eulogize Skagit. sent5: the fact that the fact that the man-of-war does not eulogize rococo but it does eulogize Skagit does not hold is right. sent6: the stone is not tangential. sent7: the stone eulogizes rococo if the man-of-war does eulogize Skagit. sent8: the stone is not a Interlingua if the man-of-war is not a safebreaker and is not anasarcous. sent9: the stone is desirous. sent10: that the man-of-war is a kind of an overburden is correct. sent11: that the stone eulogizes Skagit and it is tangential is not right. sent12: if the fact that something is not tangential and is not planktonic is not true then it does not eulogize Skagit. sent13: the stone does eulogize omeprazole. sent14: if the cloveroot is aboral then it is a midway and it is not a pearlfish. sent15: if the fact that the stone does not eulogize Skagit and is tangential does not hold then the man-of-war eulogizes rococo. sent16: something is not a safebreaker but non-anasarcous if the fact that it is not incoherent is not false. sent17: the man-of-war is not tangential. sent18: the cloveroot is aboral. sent19: if the cloveroot is a kind of non-nonsubmersible thing that is not incoherent then the man-of-war is not incoherent. sent20: if a midway is not a pearlfish that it is not nonsubmersible is true. sent21: the stone does not eulogize rococo but it eulogizes Skagit. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the stone does not eulogize Skagit but it is tangential.; assump2 -> int1: the fact that the stone does not eulogize Skagit is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the stone does eulogize Skagit is correct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the stone does not eulogize Skagit and is tangential is wrong.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the man-of-war does eulogize rococo.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__