the fact that the pleximeter is a kind of a leflunomide and it does mistake is incorrect.
sent1: if the storehouse is not onomastic but it is west the nicad is not a kind of a mistake. sent2: that the pleximeter is a leflunomide and it does mistake is wrong if the nicad is not a mistake. sent3: that the pleximeter does not peregrinate but it is a kind of a samekh does not hold. sent4: the storehouse is a samekh if the microscope pleaches Sarcophilus. sent5: the nicad is not a mistake if the storehouse is not onomastic and it is not a west. sent6: if something does not pleach Sarcophilus then it is both Creole and not a samekh. sent7: The Sarcophilus does pleach microscope. sent8: the crystallographer does not mistake. sent9: the storehouse is a leflunomide. sent10: the nicad is not a samekh if the fact that the pleximeter is not non-Creole but it is not a samekh is not wrong. sent11: the storehouse is not onomastic if the nicad does not mistake but it pleaches Sarcophilus. sent12: the microscope does pleach Sarcophilus. sent13: something is a leflunomide and it mistakes if it is not a samekh. sent14: that the nicad is a kind of a leflunomide that is a mistake does not hold if it is not a samekh. sent15: the storehouse is not a kind of a samekh if the fact that it is both not onomastic and not west does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the storehouse is both not onomastic and not west is not right.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the storehouse is not a kind of a samekh.; sent4 & sent12 -> int2: that the storehouse is a samekh hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the storehouse is non-onomastic and it is not a west.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the nicad does not mistake.; int5 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the tablecloth is not a counterproposal and it is not west.
sent6 -> int6: if the pleximeter does not pleach Sarcophilus then it is a kind of a Creole and it is not a samekh.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pleximeter is a kind of a leflunomide and it does mistake is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the storehouse is not onomastic but it is west the nicad is not a kind of a mistake. sent2: that the pleximeter is a leflunomide and it does mistake is wrong if the nicad is not a mistake. sent3: that the pleximeter does not peregrinate but it is a kind of a samekh does not hold. sent4: the storehouse is a samekh if the microscope pleaches Sarcophilus. sent5: the nicad is not a mistake if the storehouse is not onomastic and it is not a west. sent6: if something does not pleach Sarcophilus then it is both Creole and not a samekh. sent7: The Sarcophilus does pleach microscope. sent8: the crystallographer does not mistake. sent9: the storehouse is a leflunomide. sent10: the nicad is not a samekh if the fact that the pleximeter is not non-Creole but it is not a samekh is not wrong. sent11: the storehouse is not onomastic if the nicad does not mistake but it pleaches Sarcophilus. sent12: the microscope does pleach Sarcophilus. sent13: something is a leflunomide and it mistakes if it is not a samekh. sent14: that the nicad is a kind of a leflunomide that is a mistake does not hold if it is not a samekh. sent15: the storehouse is not a kind of a samekh if the fact that it is both not onomastic and not west does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the storehouse is both not onomastic and not west is not right.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the storehouse is not a kind of a samekh.; sent4 & sent12 -> int2: that the storehouse is a samekh hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the storehouse is non-onomastic and it is not a west.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the nicad does not mistake.; int5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__