that the addict is not a one-spot hold.
sent1: there exists something such that it is not a one-spot. sent2: the dashiki is a toucanet. sent3: something is not a one-spot and not vicennial if it does not corner kalansuwa. sent4: if the dashiki does ramify and is a kind of a toucanet the addict does not corner kalansuwa. sent5: the dashiki does ramify. sent6: if something is not a toucanet it is a kind of a one-spot and ramifies.
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the dashiki does ramify and is a kind of a toucanet.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the addict does not corner kalansuwa is right.; sent3 -> int3: if the addict does not corner kalansuwa it is not a one-spot and it is not vicennial.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the addict is both not a one-spot and not vicennial.; int4 -> hypothesis;
the addict is a one-spot.
sent6 -> int5: if the addict is not a toucanet it is a one-spot and it ramifies.;
$hypothesis$ = that the addict is not a one-spot hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not a one-spot. sent2: the dashiki is a toucanet. sent3: something is not a one-spot and not vicennial if it does not corner kalansuwa. sent4: if the dashiki does ramify and is a kind of a toucanet the addict does not corner kalansuwa. sent5: the dashiki does ramify. sent6: if something is not a toucanet it is a kind of a one-spot and ramifies. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the dashiki does ramify and is a kind of a toucanet.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the addict does not corner kalansuwa is right.; sent3 -> int3: if the addict does not corner kalansuwa it is not a one-spot and it is not vicennial.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the addict is both not a one-spot and not vicennial.; int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__