the pahoehoe is cationic.
sent1: that the bubbler guarantees handle and it is a kind of a polydactyly is wrong if it is not osseous. sent2: the pahoehoe is cationic and it is distributive if the paddlefish is not distributive. sent3: if the fact that the paddlefish is a closeup is correct then it is nonassociative. sent4: if the paddlefish is nonassociative then the bubbler is a kind of a polydactyly. sent5: the hollygrape is a polydactyly if a cattleya is a velveteen. sent6: something is a kind of non-osseous thing that processes gentian if it is antagonistic. sent7: if that the paddlefish is not distributive and not a closeup is not right it is nonassociative. sent8: that the paddlefish is not a closeup is not wrong. sent9: if the paddlefish is not cationic then the pahoehoe is not cationic. sent10: the pahoehoe is antagonistic. sent11: that that the paddlefish is not distributive and is a closeup hold does not hold. sent12: something is a cattleya and it is a velveteen. sent13: something does guarantee handle and is osseous if it does not process gentian. sent14: that something is both not nonassociative and not non-distributive is incorrect if it does not guarantee handle. sent15: if something that is a polydactyly is not nonassociative then it is not cationic. sent16: the bubbler is not osseous. sent17: if something guarantees handle it is a kind of a polydactyly and it is not nonassociative. sent18: the pahoehoe is distributive. sent19: something does guarantee handle but it is not cationic if it is osseous. sent20: the paddlefish does not guarantee handle if the bubbler does guarantee handle but it is not cationic. sent21: if that something guarantees handle and it is a polydactyly is incorrect then it is not a kind of a polydactyly. sent22: if the paddlefish is non-distributive then the pahoehoe is non-distributive. sent23: if that there is something such that that it is a polydactyly is not wrong is true then the photoconductivity is not a vested. sent24: if there exists something such that that it is not nonassociative and is distributive is not true the photoconductivity is not distributive.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the paddlefish is not distributive and it is not a closeup is incorrect.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the paddlefish is nonassociative.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the bubbler is a polydactyly.; sent21 -> int3: the bubbler is not a polydactyly if the fact that it guarantees handle and is a polydactyly is not correct.; sent1 & sent16 -> int4: the fact that the bubbler does guarantee handle and it is a polydactyly is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bubbler is not a polydactyly.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the paddlefish is not distributive and is not a kind of a closeup.; int7 -> int8: that the paddlefish is not distributive is true.; int8 & sent2 -> int9: that the pahoehoe is cationic and it is distributive hold.; int9 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the pahoehoe is not cationic is true.
sent15 -> int10: if the paddlefish is a polydactyly that is not nonassociative then it is not cationic.; sent17 -> int11: the fact that the paddlefish is a kind of a polydactyly but it is not nonassociative hold if it guarantees handle.; sent13 -> int12: the paddlefish guarantees handle and is osseous if it does not process gentian.;
$hypothesis$ = the pahoehoe is cationic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the bubbler guarantees handle and it is a kind of a polydactyly is wrong if it is not osseous. sent2: the pahoehoe is cationic and it is distributive if the paddlefish is not distributive. sent3: if the fact that the paddlefish is a closeup is correct then it is nonassociative. sent4: if the paddlefish is nonassociative then the bubbler is a kind of a polydactyly. sent5: the hollygrape is a polydactyly if a cattleya is a velveteen. sent6: something is a kind of non-osseous thing that processes gentian if it is antagonistic. sent7: if that the paddlefish is not distributive and not a closeup is not right it is nonassociative. sent8: that the paddlefish is not a closeup is not wrong. sent9: if the paddlefish is not cationic then the pahoehoe is not cationic. sent10: the pahoehoe is antagonistic. sent11: that that the paddlefish is not distributive and is a closeup hold does not hold. sent12: something is a cattleya and it is a velveteen. sent13: something does guarantee handle and is osseous if it does not process gentian. sent14: that something is both not nonassociative and not non-distributive is incorrect if it does not guarantee handle. sent15: if something that is a polydactyly is not nonassociative then it is not cationic. sent16: the bubbler is not osseous. sent17: if something guarantees handle it is a kind of a polydactyly and it is not nonassociative. sent18: the pahoehoe is distributive. sent19: something does guarantee handle but it is not cationic if it is osseous. sent20: the paddlefish does not guarantee handle if the bubbler does guarantee handle but it is not cationic. sent21: if that something guarantees handle and it is a polydactyly is incorrect then it is not a kind of a polydactyly. sent22: if the paddlefish is non-distributive then the pahoehoe is non-distributive. sent23: if that there is something such that that it is a polydactyly is not wrong is true then the photoconductivity is not a vested. sent24: if there exists something such that that it is not nonassociative and is distributive is not true the photoconductivity is not distributive. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the paddlefish is not distributive and it is not a closeup is incorrect.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the paddlefish is nonassociative.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the bubbler is a polydactyly.; sent21 -> int3: the bubbler is not a polydactyly if the fact that it guarantees handle and is a polydactyly is not correct.; sent1 & sent16 -> int4: the fact that the bubbler does guarantee handle and it is a polydactyly is false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bubbler is not a polydactyly.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the paddlefish is not distributive and is not a kind of a closeup.; int7 -> int8: that the paddlefish is not distributive is true.; int8 & sent2 -> int9: that the pahoehoe is cationic and it is distributive hold.; int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__