if the Arikara enfranchises secularization then the rathole enfranchises toponym.
sent1: if a pharmacy is dolomitic then the rathole enfranchises toponym. sent2: the hemstitch is not non-dolomitic if the fact that it is not non-dolomitic and is not a hold does not hold. sent3: the hemstitch is a pharmacy if the Arikara enfranchises secularization. sent4: that the hemstitch is not dolomitic and not a hold is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Arikara does enfranchise secularization hold.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the hemstitch is a pharmacy.; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: the hemstitch is dolomitic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hemstitch is a pharmacy that is dolomitic.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is a kind of a pharmacy and it is dolomitic.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the rathole does enfranchise toponym.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the Arikara enfranchises secularization then the rathole enfranchises toponym. ; $context$ = sent1: if a pharmacy is dolomitic then the rathole enfranchises toponym. sent2: the hemstitch is not non-dolomitic if the fact that it is not non-dolomitic and is not a hold does not hold. sent3: the hemstitch is a pharmacy if the Arikara enfranchises secularization. sent4: that the hemstitch is not dolomitic and not a hold is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Arikara does enfranchise secularization hold.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the hemstitch is a pharmacy.; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: the hemstitch is dolomitic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hemstitch is a pharmacy that is dolomitic.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is a kind of a pharmacy and it is dolomitic.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the rathole does enfranchise toponym.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__