that the storax is not a kind of a Polynesian but it discards angelology is false.
sent1: that the storax is not a Polynesian but it discards angelology is false if it is seedless. sent2: the gib is not a amphibrach if the clarion is not Polynesian and it is not seedless. sent3: something discards angelology and is a coquette if it is not hiplength. sent4: the clarion is annalistic. sent5: the storax is not a speciation. sent6: that the storax does drain afterthought and it is a jumble is wrong. sent7: the fact that the playmate does drain afterthought if the gib is annalistic but it is not a amphibrach is right. sent8: the gib is not hiplength if something either does not drain prolapse or is not sepaloid or both. sent9: something is annalistic if it discards angelology. sent10: if the fact that that the gib is arthromeric or it does not drain sodalist or both hold does not hold it does not drain afterthought. sent11: the gib is seedless and it is a amphibrach. sent12: the gib does not drain afterthought if that it is arthromeric and/or does drain sodalist is not right. sent13: either the Chevalier does not drain prolapse or it is not sepaloid or both. sent14: the gib is arthromeric and/or drains sodalist. sent15: the gib does drain sodalist. sent16: if the gib is arthromeric and/or it does not drain sodalist then the clarion is not annalistic. sent17: if the gib does not drain sodalist then the clarion is not annalistic. sent18: the storax is not a kind of a amphibrach and is seedless if something does not drain afterthought.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gib is arthromeric and/or it does not drain sodalist.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the clarion is not annalistic.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the gib is arthromeric and/or does not drain sodalist is wrong.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the gib does not drain afterthought.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it does not drain afterthought.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the storax is not a amphibrach but it is seedless.; int6 -> int7: the storax is seedless.; int7 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the storax is a kind of non-Polynesian thing that discards angelology.
sent11 -> int8: the gib is a amphibrach.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a amphibrach.;
$hypothesis$ = that the storax is not a kind of a Polynesian but it discards angelology is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the storax is not a Polynesian but it discards angelology is false if it is seedless. sent2: the gib is not a amphibrach if the clarion is not Polynesian and it is not seedless. sent3: something discards angelology and is a coquette if it is not hiplength. sent4: the clarion is annalistic. sent5: the storax is not a speciation. sent6: that the storax does drain afterthought and it is a jumble is wrong. sent7: the fact that the playmate does drain afterthought if the gib is annalistic but it is not a amphibrach is right. sent8: the gib is not hiplength if something either does not drain prolapse or is not sepaloid or both. sent9: something is annalistic if it discards angelology. sent10: if the fact that that the gib is arthromeric or it does not drain sodalist or both hold does not hold it does not drain afterthought. sent11: the gib is seedless and it is a amphibrach. sent12: the gib does not drain afterthought if that it is arthromeric and/or does drain sodalist is not right. sent13: either the Chevalier does not drain prolapse or it is not sepaloid or both. sent14: the gib is arthromeric and/or drains sodalist. sent15: the gib does drain sodalist. sent16: if the gib is arthromeric and/or it does not drain sodalist then the clarion is not annalistic. sent17: if the gib does not drain sodalist then the clarion is not annalistic. sent18: the storax is not a kind of a amphibrach and is seedless if something does not drain afterthought. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gib is arthromeric and/or it does not drain sodalist.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the clarion is not annalistic.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the gib is arthromeric and/or does not drain sodalist is wrong.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the gib does not drain afterthought.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it does not drain afterthought.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the storax is not a amphibrach but it is seedless.; int6 -> int7: the storax is seedless.; int7 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__