that if the spillway does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime then the fact that the fact that the hotchpotch is not allographic and is a part is not false does not hold does not hold.
sent1: the fact that the hotchpotch is not allographic but it is a part is false if the spillway does deaminate dimethylglyoxime. sent2: that the fact that the hotchpotch is both not non-allographic and a part hold is wrong. sent3: the spillway deaminates dimethylglyoxime if a non-allographic thing is a part. sent4: if something is not allographic but it does deaminate dimethylglyoxime then the hotchpotch is a part. sent5: there exists something such that it is allographic and it is a part. sent6: the hotchpotch is not episcopal. sent7: there exists something such that it is not allographic. sent8: the fact that the menagerie is inclement if the menagerie is regional is correct. sent9: the hotchpotch is not allographic but it is a kind of a part if the spillway does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime. sent10: if the menagerie does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime then the spillway is both not Alpine and extensive. sent11: something does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime and owns inconstancy if that it is not a unprofitableness is right. sent12: the flypaper is not a part. sent13: something is not a unprofitableness if the fact that it is not a unprofitableness and/or it is inclement is right. sent14: the hotchpotch is not allographic. sent15: that the spillway is not a part and does deaminate dimethylglyoxime does not hold. sent16: something is a part. sent17: something is not horse-drawn and is a sacrifice.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the hotchpotch is not allographic and is a part.; assump2 -> int1: there exists something such that it is both not allographic and a part.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the spillway does deaminate dimethylglyoxime.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spillway does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the hotchpotch is non-allographic thing that is a part does not hold.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that it is non-Alpine and extensive.
sent11 -> int5: if the menagerie is not a kind of a unprofitableness it does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime and does own inconstancy.; sent13 -> int6: the menagerie is not a unprofitableness if it is not a unprofitableness and/or it is inclement.;
$hypothesis$ = that if the spillway does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime then the fact that the fact that the hotchpotch is not allographic and is a part is not false does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hotchpotch is not allographic but it is a part is false if the spillway does deaminate dimethylglyoxime. sent2: that the fact that the hotchpotch is both not non-allographic and a part hold is wrong. sent3: the spillway deaminates dimethylglyoxime if a non-allographic thing is a part. sent4: if something is not allographic but it does deaminate dimethylglyoxime then the hotchpotch is a part. sent5: there exists something such that it is allographic and it is a part. sent6: the hotchpotch is not episcopal. sent7: there exists something such that it is not allographic. sent8: the fact that the menagerie is inclement if the menagerie is regional is correct. sent9: the hotchpotch is not allographic but it is a kind of a part if the spillway does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime. sent10: if the menagerie does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime then the spillway is both not Alpine and extensive. sent11: something does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime and owns inconstancy if that it is not a unprofitableness is right. sent12: the flypaper is not a part. sent13: something is not a unprofitableness if the fact that it is not a unprofitableness and/or it is inclement is right. sent14: the hotchpotch is not allographic. sent15: that the spillway is not a part and does deaminate dimethylglyoxime does not hold. sent16: something is a part. sent17: something is not horse-drawn and is a sacrifice. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the hotchpotch is not allographic and is a part.; assump2 -> int1: there exists something such that it is both not allographic and a part.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the spillway does deaminate dimethylglyoxime.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spillway does not deaminate dimethylglyoxime.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the hotchpotch is non-allographic thing that is a part does not hold.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__