the metacarpal is an albatross.
sent1: if something does spend Calluna that it is invasive and/or is not a kind of a Dushanbe is not true. sent2: the deviationist is not a Dushanbe but it is homonymic if the surety is not homonymic. sent3: the fact that the surety is homonymic and it is invasive is wrong. sent4: the metacarpal is not an albatross if that it is near and it is an albatross does not hold. sent5: that the patzer is not homonymic hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that it spends spotlessness and does not spend Calluna is false then the surety does spend Calluna. sent7: if the patzer is not a kind of a cheesecake then it is a kind of doctoral thing that is a kind of a crinoid. sent8: the metacarpal is a kind of an albatross if the deviationist does spend universal. sent9: the patzer is regular. sent10: the patzer does not spend Goddard but it does postulate. sent11: if the patzer is non-tensile then that it is not impossible and it is a cheesecake is not correct. sent12: the patzer is near if the fact that the surety is both not homonymic and calligraphic is not correct. sent13: the fact that the patzer is invasive hold. sent14: the Arikara is invasive. sent15: the fact that something does spend universal and is an albatross is wrong if it is not near. sent16: if the fact that the patzer is both a possible and a cheesecake is wrong that it is not a cheesecake hold. sent17: something is not an albatross if that it spends universal and is an albatross is not right. sent18: if something is not a Dushanbe but it is homonymic then it does spend universal. sent19: the patzer is not near if it is not noninvasive. sent20: if the surety is non-homonymic then the deviationist is non-homonymic. sent21: the patzer is not tensile. sent22: the fact that the deviationist is homonymic is not incorrect. sent23: that that something spends spotlessness and does not spend Calluna is not incorrect is wrong if it is doctoral. sent24: that the surety is both homonymic and calligraphic does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the surety is both non-homonymic and not non-calligraphic is not right.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the patzer is near.; sent19 & sent13 -> int2: the patzer is not near.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the surety is not homonymic but it is calligraphic.; int4 -> int5: the surety is not homonymic.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the deviationist is not a kind of a Dushanbe and is homonymic.; sent18 -> int7: that if the deviationist is not the Dushanbe but it is homonymic then the deviationist does spend universal is true.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the deviationist does spend universal.; int8 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the metacarpal is not an albatross.
sent17 -> int9: if that the metacarpal does spend universal and is a kind of an albatross is not correct then it is not a kind of an albatross.; sent15 -> int10: that the metacarpal does spend universal and it is a kind of an albatross is false if it is not near.; sent1 -> int11: that the surety is not noninvasive or it is not a Dushanbe or both is false if it spends Calluna.; sent23 -> int12: that the patzer does spend spotlessness and does not spend Calluna is not true if it is doctoral.; sent11 & sent21 -> int13: the fact that the patzer is possible and it is a cheesecake is not true.; sent16 & int13 -> int14: the patzer is not a cheesecake.; sent7 & int14 -> int15: the patzer is doctoral and it is a kind of a crinoid.; int15 -> int16: the patzer is doctoral.; int12 & int16 -> int17: that the patzer spends spotlessness but it does not spend Calluna does not hold.; int17 -> int18: there exists something such that the fact that it spends spotlessness and does not spend Calluna does not hold.; int18 & sent6 -> int19: the surety spends Calluna.; int11 & int19 -> int20: the fact that that the fact that the surety is invasive and/or it is not a kind of a Dushanbe is correct is wrong is not false.; int20 -> int21: there is something such that that it is invasive and/or is not a Dushanbe is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the metacarpal is an albatross. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does spend Calluna that it is invasive and/or is not a kind of a Dushanbe is not true. sent2: the deviationist is not a Dushanbe but it is homonymic if the surety is not homonymic. sent3: the fact that the surety is homonymic and it is invasive is wrong. sent4: the metacarpal is not an albatross if that it is near and it is an albatross does not hold. sent5: that the patzer is not homonymic hold. sent6: if there exists something such that that it spends spotlessness and does not spend Calluna is false then the surety does spend Calluna. sent7: if the patzer is not a kind of a cheesecake then it is a kind of doctoral thing that is a kind of a crinoid. sent8: the metacarpal is a kind of an albatross if the deviationist does spend universal. sent9: the patzer is regular. sent10: the patzer does not spend Goddard but it does postulate. sent11: if the patzer is non-tensile then that it is not impossible and it is a cheesecake is not correct. sent12: the patzer is near if the fact that the surety is both not homonymic and calligraphic is not correct. sent13: the fact that the patzer is invasive hold. sent14: the Arikara is invasive. sent15: the fact that something does spend universal and is an albatross is wrong if it is not near. sent16: if the fact that the patzer is both a possible and a cheesecake is wrong that it is not a cheesecake hold. sent17: something is not an albatross if that it spends universal and is an albatross is not right. sent18: if something is not a Dushanbe but it is homonymic then it does spend universal. sent19: the patzer is not near if it is not noninvasive. sent20: if the surety is non-homonymic then the deviationist is non-homonymic. sent21: the patzer is not tensile. sent22: the fact that the deviationist is homonymic is not incorrect. sent23: that that something spends spotlessness and does not spend Calluna is not incorrect is wrong if it is doctoral. sent24: that the surety is both homonymic and calligraphic does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the surety is both non-homonymic and not non-calligraphic is not right.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the patzer is near.; sent19 & sent13 -> int2: the patzer is not near.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the surety is not homonymic but it is calligraphic.; int4 -> int5: the surety is not homonymic.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the deviationist is not a kind of a Dushanbe and is homonymic.; sent18 -> int7: that if the deviationist is not the Dushanbe but it is homonymic then the deviationist does spend universal is true.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the deviationist does spend universal.; int8 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__