if the forty-niner enjoys herpetologist then the fact that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic does not hold.
sent1: that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder but it is animatistic is wrong if it is not a kind of a Nauruan. sent2: the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic. sent3: something does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic if it is not Nauruan. sent4: the dragonhead is nonexplosive. sent5: if the forty-niner does enjoy herpetologist then that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and is animatistic is incorrect. sent6: the forty-niner is not Nauruan and is not nonexplosive if the dragonhead beats jerry-builder. sent7: if the dragonhead is not a Nauruan it does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic. sent8: something beats jerry-builder if that it is nonexplosive and it does not beats jerry-builder does not hold. sent9: that something does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic is not correct if it is not a kind of a Nauruan. sent10: if the dragonhead does enjoy herpetologist that the forty-niner is not nonexplosive and not a Nauruan is true. sent11: that something does not beat jerry-builder and is animatistic does not hold if it is not a Nauruan. sent12: if something is nonexplosive then that it does not enjoy herpetologist is not false. sent13: that the dragonhead beats jerry-builder and is not animatistic is not right if the forty-niner enjoys herpetologist. sent14: if the forty-niner is not nonexplosive then that the dragonhead is not a Nauruan but nonexplosive is not false. sent15: the fact that the forty-niner is not nonexplosive and not a Nauruan does not hold if the dragonhead does beat jerry-builder. sent16: that something is nonexplosive and does not beat jerry-builder is not true if it is animatistic. sent17: the fact that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder but it is animatistic is not right. sent18: that the dragonhead does beat jerry-builder but it is not animatistic is wrong if it is not Nauruan.
sent12 -> int1: the forty-niner does not enjoy herpetologist if it is nonexplosive.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the forty-niner is nonexplosive is correct.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the forty-niner does not enjoy herpetologist.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the forty-niner enjoys herpetologist is true.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the forty-niner is not nonexplosive.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the dragonhead is non-Nauruan thing that is nonexplosive.; int5 -> int6: the dragonhead is non-Nauruan.; sent9 -> int7: that that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and it is not animatistic is not correct is not wrong if it is not a Nauruan.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and it is non-animatistic is wrong.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the forty-niner beats jerry-builder.
sent8 -> int9: if that the forty-niner is nonexplosive and does not beat jerry-builder does not hold then it beat jerry-builder.; sent16 -> int10: the fact that the forty-niner is a kind of nonexplosive thing that does not beat jerry-builder is wrong if it is animatistic.;
$hypothesis$ = if the forty-niner enjoys herpetologist then the fact that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder but it is animatistic is wrong if it is not a kind of a Nauruan. sent2: the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic. sent3: something does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic if it is not Nauruan. sent4: the dragonhead is nonexplosive. sent5: if the forty-niner does enjoy herpetologist then that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and is animatistic is incorrect. sent6: the forty-niner is not Nauruan and is not nonexplosive if the dragonhead beats jerry-builder. sent7: if the dragonhead is not a Nauruan it does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic. sent8: something beats jerry-builder if that it is nonexplosive and it does not beats jerry-builder does not hold. sent9: that something does not beat jerry-builder and is not animatistic is not correct if it is not a kind of a Nauruan. sent10: if the dragonhead does enjoy herpetologist that the forty-niner is not nonexplosive and not a Nauruan is true. sent11: that something does not beat jerry-builder and is animatistic does not hold if it is not a Nauruan. sent12: if something is nonexplosive then that it does not enjoy herpetologist is not false. sent13: that the dragonhead beats jerry-builder and is not animatistic is not right if the forty-niner enjoys herpetologist. sent14: if the forty-niner is not nonexplosive then that the dragonhead is not a Nauruan but nonexplosive is not false. sent15: the fact that the forty-niner is not nonexplosive and not a Nauruan does not hold if the dragonhead does beat jerry-builder. sent16: that something is nonexplosive and does not beat jerry-builder is not true if it is animatistic. sent17: the fact that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder but it is animatistic is not right. sent18: that the dragonhead does beat jerry-builder but it is not animatistic is wrong if it is not Nauruan. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: the forty-niner does not enjoy herpetologist if it is nonexplosive.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the forty-niner is nonexplosive is correct.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the forty-niner does not enjoy herpetologist.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the forty-niner enjoys herpetologist is true.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the forty-niner is not nonexplosive.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the dragonhead is non-Nauruan thing that is nonexplosive.; int5 -> int6: the dragonhead is non-Nauruan.; sent9 -> int7: that that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and it is not animatistic is not correct is not wrong if it is not a Nauruan.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the dragonhead does not beat jerry-builder and it is non-animatistic is wrong.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__