that the abstainer does not impact malamute hold.
sent1: the butterwort does not impact Hudson. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a Providence is not neuromuscular the fact that it does impact malamute hold. sent3: if the television is not a Providence then the fact that the flask is non-Platonistic thing that excuses side is wrong. sent4: if something is generational thing that is not a transgressor it is not onstage. sent5: if the television is a Providence then it is neuromuscular. sent6: something that is a secularism or is a sandwichman or both does not impact malamute. sent7: if the butterwort does not impact Hudson it is both generational and not a transgressor. sent8: if something is a kind of a sandwichman it does not impact malamute. sent9: if the flask does not excuse side it is not antimonic. sent10: The Hudson does not impact butterwort. sent11: if the television is neuromuscular the butterwort is onstage. sent12: the abstainer is a kind of a secularism if the flask is not antimonic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the television is a Providence.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the television is neuromuscular.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the butterwort is onstage.; sent4 -> int3: the butterwort is not onstage if it is generational and it is not a transgressor.; sent7 & sent1 -> int4: the butterwort is both generational and not a transgressor.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the butterwort is not onstage.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the television is not a Providence.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the fact that the flask is non-Platonistic thing that excuses side does not hold.; sent6 -> int9: if the abstainer either is a secularism or is a kind of a sandwichman or both it does not impact malamute.;
the abstainer impacts malamute.
sent2 -> int10: if the abstainer is not a kind of a Providence and it is not neuromuscular then the fact that it does impact malamute is not false.;
$hypothesis$ = that the abstainer does not impact malamute hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the butterwort does not impact Hudson. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a Providence is not neuromuscular the fact that it does impact malamute hold. sent3: if the television is not a Providence then the fact that the flask is non-Platonistic thing that excuses side is wrong. sent4: if something is generational thing that is not a transgressor it is not onstage. sent5: if the television is a Providence then it is neuromuscular. sent6: something that is a secularism or is a sandwichman or both does not impact malamute. sent7: if the butterwort does not impact Hudson it is both generational and not a transgressor. sent8: if something is a kind of a sandwichman it does not impact malamute. sent9: if the flask does not excuse side it is not antimonic. sent10: The Hudson does not impact butterwort. sent11: if the television is neuromuscular the butterwort is onstage. sent12: the abstainer is a kind of a secularism if the flask is not antimonic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the television is a Providence.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the television is neuromuscular.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the butterwort is onstage.; sent4 -> int3: the butterwort is not onstage if it is generational and it is not a transgressor.; sent7 & sent1 -> int4: the butterwort is both generational and not a transgressor.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the butterwort is not onstage.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the television is not a Providence.; int7 & sent3 -> int8: the fact that the flask is non-Platonistic thing that excuses side does not hold.; sent6 -> int9: if the abstainer either is a secularism or is a kind of a sandwichman or both it does not impact malamute.; __UNKNOWN__