the brig reflectorizes pennoncel but it is not a kind of a locomotive if the Fez does slosh.
sent1: the brig is not a kind of a locomotive if the Fez does reflectorize pennoncel but it does not slosh. sent2: the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and does slosh if the Fez is a kind of a locomotive. sent3: that the brig sloshes and does not reflectorize pennoncel does not hold. sent4: the retrofit does not slosh. sent5: if the Fez reflectorizes pennoncel the brig is a kind of locomotive thing that does not slosh. sent6: the brig does not comfort auto-da-fe if the fact that the Fez does not comfort auto-da-fe and/or is not inconsiderate is wrong. sent7: if the brig does not reflectorize pennoncel the Fez does not slosh. sent8: the brig sloshes and reflectorizes pennoncel if the Fez is locomotive. sent9: if that the Fez is a kind of a locomotive that does not reflectorize pennoncel is false the brig does slosh. sent10: the brig is a kind of a locomotive and is not branchless. sent11: the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and it is a locomotive hold. sent12: if something does not comfort auto-da-fe then it sloshes and is an incidental. sent13: if the brig reflectorizes pennoncel but it is not a locomotive then the fact that the Fez does not slosh is not false. sent14: the brig does reflectorize pennoncel and it is a locomotive if the Fez sloshes. sent15: if the Fez is not a kind of a locomotive then the brig does not reflectorize pennoncel. sent16: the fact that the prism is both a restraint and not a bystander does not hold if the brig is incidental. sent17: the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel is true if the Fez sloshes. sent18: the Fez does not slosh if the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and it is locomotive is incorrect. sent19: if the fact that the brig does reflectorize pennoncel and is not a locomotive is not correct then the Fez does not slosh.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and is not locomotive is not incorrect is incorrect.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the Fez does not slosh.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Fez sloshes.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the brig does reflectorize pennoncel but it is not a locomotive.; [assump2] & int3 -> hypothesis;
that the fact that the prism is a restraint and is not a kind of a bystander hold is not right.
sent12 -> int4: the brig sloshes and it is a kind of an incidental if it does not comfort auto-da-fe.;
$hypothesis$ = the brig reflectorizes pennoncel but it is not a kind of a locomotive if the Fez does slosh. ; $context$ = sent1: the brig is not a kind of a locomotive if the Fez does reflectorize pennoncel but it does not slosh. sent2: the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and does slosh if the Fez is a kind of a locomotive. sent3: that the brig sloshes and does not reflectorize pennoncel does not hold. sent4: the retrofit does not slosh. sent5: if the Fez reflectorizes pennoncel the brig is a kind of locomotive thing that does not slosh. sent6: the brig does not comfort auto-da-fe if the fact that the Fez does not comfort auto-da-fe and/or is not inconsiderate is wrong. sent7: if the brig does not reflectorize pennoncel the Fez does not slosh. sent8: the brig sloshes and reflectorizes pennoncel if the Fez is locomotive. sent9: if that the Fez is a kind of a locomotive that does not reflectorize pennoncel is false the brig does slosh. sent10: the brig is a kind of a locomotive and is not branchless. sent11: the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and it is a locomotive hold. sent12: if something does not comfort auto-da-fe then it sloshes and is an incidental. sent13: if the brig reflectorizes pennoncel but it is not a locomotive then the fact that the Fez does not slosh is not false. sent14: the brig does reflectorize pennoncel and it is a locomotive if the Fez sloshes. sent15: if the Fez is not a kind of a locomotive then the brig does not reflectorize pennoncel. sent16: the fact that the prism is both a restraint and not a bystander does not hold if the brig is incidental. sent17: the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel is true if the Fez sloshes. sent18: the Fez does not slosh if the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and it is locomotive is incorrect. sent19: if the fact that the brig does reflectorize pennoncel and is not a locomotive is not correct then the Fez does not slosh. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the brig reflectorizes pennoncel and is not locomotive is not incorrect is incorrect.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the Fez does not slosh.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Fez sloshes.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the brig does reflectorize pennoncel but it is not a locomotive.; [assump2] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__