the fact that the bridgehead does incriminate sheikdom and it is prosthodontics does not hold.
sent1: the fact that the fresco chances Jeddah and it is prosthodontics is not right if the fact that it is not a greensand is true. sent2: the fresco is not apsidal if the spirometer is a soured. sent3: that the fresco does not circumnavigate is not false. sent4: the fresco is not a miotic if it is apsidal. sent5: if something does not sour then the fact that it is a kind of animalistic thing that does incriminate sheikdom is not right. sent6: the fact that something incriminates sheikdom and it is prosthodontics does not hold if it is not miotic. sent7: the fresco does not incriminate sheikdom. sent8: if the bridgehead is a miotic then it does not augment. sent9: if the spirometer is not a kind of a soured the bridgehead is not animalistic but it does circumnavigate. sent10: if the sheikdom does augment the fresco is apsidal. sent11: the bridgehead does not incriminate sheikdom if the spirometer is a kind of a miotic. sent12: the bridgehead is not animalistic but it is a ascomycete. sent13: something is not miotic if the fact that it does circumnavigate is correct. sent14: the sheikdom does augment. sent15: the sheikdom is not non-apsidal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spirometer is soured.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fresco is non-apsidal.; sent10 & sent14 -> int2: the fresco is apsidal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the spirometer is not soured.; int4 & sent9 -> int5: the bridgehead is not animalistic but it does circumnavigate.; int5 -> int6: the bridgehead does circumnavigate.; sent13 -> int7: if the bridgehead does circumnavigate then it is not a kind of a miotic.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the bridgehead is not a miotic.; sent6 -> int9: that the fact that the bridgehead does incriminate sheikdom and is prosthodontics is right is not true if it is not a miotic.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the bridgehead does incriminate sheikdom and it is prosthodontics does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fresco chances Jeddah and it is prosthodontics is not right if the fact that it is not a greensand is true. sent2: the fresco is not apsidal if the spirometer is a soured. sent3: that the fresco does not circumnavigate is not false. sent4: the fresco is not a miotic if it is apsidal. sent5: if something does not sour then the fact that it is a kind of animalistic thing that does incriminate sheikdom is not right. sent6: the fact that something incriminates sheikdom and it is prosthodontics does not hold if it is not miotic. sent7: the fresco does not incriminate sheikdom. sent8: if the bridgehead is a miotic then it does not augment. sent9: if the spirometer is not a kind of a soured the bridgehead is not animalistic but it does circumnavigate. sent10: if the sheikdom does augment the fresco is apsidal. sent11: the bridgehead does not incriminate sheikdom if the spirometer is a kind of a miotic. sent12: the bridgehead is not animalistic but it is a ascomycete. sent13: something is not miotic if the fact that it does circumnavigate is correct. sent14: the sheikdom does augment. sent15: the sheikdom is not non-apsidal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spirometer is soured.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fresco is non-apsidal.; sent10 & sent14 -> int2: the fresco is apsidal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the spirometer is not soured.; int4 & sent9 -> int5: the bridgehead is not animalistic but it does circumnavigate.; int5 -> int6: the bridgehead does circumnavigate.; sent13 -> int7: if the bridgehead does circumnavigate then it is not a kind of a miotic.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the bridgehead is not a miotic.; sent6 -> int9: that the fact that the bridgehead does incriminate sheikdom and is prosthodontics is right is not true if it is not a miotic.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__