the view does not direct.
sent1: that the Komi does not dissimilate acronym and is eponymous is incorrect if the fact that it is an acoustics hold. sent2: the fact that the Hull is a kind of a sabbatical and/or it does not direct does not hold if the Maalox is not a Scaphosepalum. sent3: if the view is a kind of a sabbatical and it does direct then the Hull is not a kind of a Scaphosepalum. sent4: if the ottoman is non-wifely then the incompetent is not non-wifely. sent5: the Hull does not restore flagpole and is wifely. sent6: something that is not wifely is both not teleological and not a placental. sent7: if the incompetent is not teleological and it is not a kind of a placental then the Maalox is not a Scaphosepalum. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does succumb and is not a slacks does not hold. sent9: if the fact that something does not dissimilate acronym but it is eponymous is not correct it does not restore flagpole. sent10: the Hull is a kind of a placental and it is wifely if it is not sabbatical. sent11: the Hull is non-teleological if it does not restore flagpole and is wifely. sent12: if something is not teleological it is a Scaphosepalum and is placental. sent13: the Komi is an acoustics and it does intercept. sent14: the view is sabbatical if there exists something such that the fact that that it does succumb and it does not slack is true does not hold. sent15: the view directs if the fact that the Hull is a sabbatical or it does not directs or both is not correct. sent16: the fact that something is both omissive and wifely is incorrect if it does not restore flagpole.
sent8 & sent14 -> int1: the view is a sabbatical.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the view is direct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the view is sabbatical thing that directs.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the Hull is not a Scaphosepalum.; sent12 -> int4: the Hull is a kind of a Scaphosepalum and it is placental if it is not teleological.; sent11 & sent5 -> int5: the Hull is not teleological.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Hull is a kind of a Scaphosepalum and it is placental.; int6 -> int7: the Hull is a Scaphosepalum.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the view directs.
sent6 -> int9: if the incompetent is not wifely it is not teleological and not a placental.; sent16 -> int10: if the Komi does not restore flagpole that it is both omissive and wifely is false.; sent9 -> int11: the Komi does not restore flagpole if that it does not dissimilate acronym and it is eponymous is not true.; sent13 -> int12: the Komi is an acoustics.; sent1 & int12 -> int13: that the Komi does not dissimilate acronym and is eponymous is not correct.; int11 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the Komi does not restore flagpole is correct.; int10 & int14 -> int15: the fact that the Komi is both omissive and wifely is wrong.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that the fact that it is omissive and it is wifely is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the view does not direct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Komi does not dissimilate acronym and is eponymous is incorrect if the fact that it is an acoustics hold. sent2: the fact that the Hull is a kind of a sabbatical and/or it does not direct does not hold if the Maalox is not a Scaphosepalum. sent3: if the view is a kind of a sabbatical and it does direct then the Hull is not a kind of a Scaphosepalum. sent4: if the ottoman is non-wifely then the incompetent is not non-wifely. sent5: the Hull does not restore flagpole and is wifely. sent6: something that is not wifely is both not teleological and not a placental. sent7: if the incompetent is not teleological and it is not a kind of a placental then the Maalox is not a Scaphosepalum. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it does succumb and is not a slacks does not hold. sent9: if the fact that something does not dissimilate acronym but it is eponymous is not correct it does not restore flagpole. sent10: the Hull is a kind of a placental and it is wifely if it is not sabbatical. sent11: the Hull is non-teleological if it does not restore flagpole and is wifely. sent12: if something is not teleological it is a Scaphosepalum and is placental. sent13: the Komi is an acoustics and it does intercept. sent14: the view is sabbatical if there exists something such that the fact that that it does succumb and it does not slack is true does not hold. sent15: the view directs if the fact that the Hull is a sabbatical or it does not directs or both is not correct. sent16: the fact that something is both omissive and wifely is incorrect if it does not restore flagpole. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent14 -> int1: the view is a sabbatical.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the view is direct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the view is sabbatical thing that directs.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the Hull is not a Scaphosepalum.; sent12 -> int4: the Hull is a kind of a Scaphosepalum and it is placental if it is not teleological.; sent11 & sent5 -> int5: the Hull is not teleological.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the Hull is a kind of a Scaphosepalum and it is placental.; int6 -> int7: the Hull is a Scaphosepalum.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__