either the Dewar is a Algerian or it ratchets thermoreceptor or both.
sent1: something ratchets thermoreceptor if the fact that it leans and it does not numb is wrong. sent2: the specifier is leaning. sent3: something preys sealant if that it does not preys sealant and does not saltate is wrong. sent4: if something does not saltate then that it preys sealant and is not a multiplicity is false. sent5: if something does not ratchet thermoreceptor that it is both leaning and controversial is false. sent6: something is not uncontroversial if that it preys sealant and is not a multiplicity is wrong. sent7: if there is something such that it does numb then the Dewar does lean and/or it numb. sent8: that the arboretum does lean is correct if the specifier is lean. sent9: if the dodger is controversial the Dewar ratchets thermoreceptor. sent10: the arboretum does not lean if the dodger does saltate and/or it numbs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dodger saltates.; assump1 -> int1: the dodger does saltate and/or it numbs.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the arboretum does not lean.; sent8 & sent2 -> int3: the arboretum does lean.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the dodger does not saltate.; sent4 -> int6: if that the dodger saltates is wrong then that it does prey sealant and is not a multiplicity is not correct.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the dodger preys sealant but it is not a multiplicity is not correct.; sent6 -> int8: if the fact that the dodger does prey sealant but it is not a kind of a multiplicity is false it is controversial.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the dodger is controversial.; int9 & sent9 -> int10: the Dewar does ratchet thermoreceptor.; int10 -> hypothesis;
the nontricyclic does prey sealant.
sent3 -> int11: if the fact that the nontricyclic does not prey sealant and does not saltate does not hold it does prey sealant.;
$hypothesis$ = either the Dewar is a Algerian or it ratchets thermoreceptor or both. ; $context$ = sent1: something ratchets thermoreceptor if the fact that it leans and it does not numb is wrong. sent2: the specifier is leaning. sent3: something preys sealant if that it does not preys sealant and does not saltate is wrong. sent4: if something does not saltate then that it preys sealant and is not a multiplicity is false. sent5: if something does not ratchet thermoreceptor that it is both leaning and controversial is false. sent6: something is not uncontroversial if that it preys sealant and is not a multiplicity is wrong. sent7: if there is something such that it does numb then the Dewar does lean and/or it numb. sent8: that the arboretum does lean is correct if the specifier is lean. sent9: if the dodger is controversial the Dewar ratchets thermoreceptor. sent10: the arboretum does not lean if the dodger does saltate and/or it numbs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dodger saltates.; assump1 -> int1: the dodger does saltate and/or it numbs.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the arboretum does not lean.; sent8 & sent2 -> int3: the arboretum does lean.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the dodger does not saltate.; sent4 -> int6: if that the dodger saltates is wrong then that it does prey sealant and is not a multiplicity is not correct.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the dodger preys sealant but it is not a multiplicity is not correct.; sent6 -> int8: if the fact that the dodger does prey sealant but it is not a kind of a multiplicity is false it is controversial.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the dodger is controversial.; int9 & sent9 -> int10: the Dewar does ratchet thermoreceptor.; int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__