the Mogul seels.
sent1: that the special is not a kind of a telescope and does not bilk does not hold if the neuroscientist is not unpatriotic. sent2: if the lygaeid is not a pasta the fact that the gangsaw is not a casework but it is a kind of a dietician is incorrect. sent3: if the gangsaw does not impel emmer then that it is not pasta and does sit is not correct. sent4: the neuroscientist is not unpatriotic if that it impels LLD and is not a repression is incorrect. sent5: if the special is not a casework then that the gangsaw does impel emmer and it is a dietician is not right. sent6: that if something is not a humanization the fact that it is a recount and corporate is not right hold. sent7: that something does not impel emmer is true if that it is a recount that is corporate is false. sent8: that the timberman does not sit is not incorrect. sent9: if the special does impel emmer then the Mogul does seel. sent10: that the gangsaw does overreach triptych and it is profound is false. sent11: the gangsaw is pasta if something does not impel emmer. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a casework and it is a dietician is incorrect the timberman sits. sent13: if the fact that the lygaeid does not seel but it does sit is wrong the Mogul does not seel. sent14: the special does not seel. sent15: the fact that the Mogul does not seel and is pasta does not hold. sent16: the special impels emmer if the lygaeid is pasta. sent17: if there is something such that that it does not telescope and does not bilk is not correct then the timberman is not a humanization. sent18: that the gangsaw is the pasta if the fact that the gangsaw is not a kind of a pasta but it sits is false is right. sent19: the fact that the neuroscientist does impel LLD but it is not a kind of a repression is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lygaeid is not a pasta.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the gangsaw is not a casework and is a dietician is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a casework and it is a dietician is wrong.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the timberman sits.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the lygaeid is pasta.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: the special impels emmer.; int6 & sent9 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that that it is both not a repression and hydric is not correct.
$hypothesis$ = the Mogul seels. ; $context$ = sent1: that the special is not a kind of a telescope and does not bilk does not hold if the neuroscientist is not unpatriotic. sent2: if the lygaeid is not a pasta the fact that the gangsaw is not a casework but it is a kind of a dietician is incorrect. sent3: if the gangsaw does not impel emmer then that it is not pasta and does sit is not correct. sent4: the neuroscientist is not unpatriotic if that it impels LLD and is not a repression is incorrect. sent5: if the special is not a casework then that the gangsaw does impel emmer and it is a dietician is not right. sent6: that if something is not a humanization the fact that it is a recount and corporate is not right hold. sent7: that something does not impel emmer is true if that it is a recount that is corporate is false. sent8: that the timberman does not sit is not incorrect. sent9: if the special does impel emmer then the Mogul does seel. sent10: that the gangsaw does overreach triptych and it is profound is false. sent11: the gangsaw is pasta if something does not impel emmer. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a casework and it is a dietician is incorrect the timberman sits. sent13: if the fact that the lygaeid does not seel but it does sit is wrong the Mogul does not seel. sent14: the special does not seel. sent15: the fact that the Mogul does not seel and is pasta does not hold. sent16: the special impels emmer if the lygaeid is pasta. sent17: if there is something such that that it does not telescope and does not bilk is not correct then the timberman is not a humanization. sent18: that the gangsaw is the pasta if the fact that the gangsaw is not a kind of a pasta but it sits is false is right. sent19: the fact that the neuroscientist does impel LLD but it is not a kind of a repression is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lygaeid is not a pasta.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the gangsaw is not a casework and is a dietician is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a casework and it is a dietician is wrong.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the timberman sits.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the lygaeid is pasta.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: the special impels emmer.; int6 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__