the premises is not raw if the interpreter is a smash and it does wake grotto.
sent1: the premises is a raw. sent2: if something is legislative the premises is not a raw. sent3: the premises is not amicable. sent4: the premises is not raw if there is something such that the fact that it wakes frogbit and is not legislative is not true. sent5: if the premises does smash the fact that it is a raw and it wakes frogbit is not correct. sent6: if the anther is not non-psychogenic then the fact that it is a smash and it does not reflect antipope is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it wakes frogbit and is legislative is incorrect. sent8: the fact that the interpreter does wake frogbit but it is not legislative is not right if it does wake grotto. sent9: if the premises is a kind of a smash and it wakes frogbit then the interpreter wakes grotto. sent10: the interpreter does smash. sent11: the interpreter is not a kind of a raw if the premises does wake frogbit and it wakes grotto.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the interpreter smashes and does wake grotto.; assump1 -> int1: the interpreter wakes grotto.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the interpreter does wake frogbit but it is non-legislative is not true.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it does wake frogbit and is not legislative is not right.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the premises is not a raw.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the premises is not raw if the interpreter is a smash and it does wake grotto. ; $context$ = sent1: the premises is a raw. sent2: if something is legislative the premises is not a raw. sent3: the premises is not amicable. sent4: the premises is not raw if there is something such that the fact that it wakes frogbit and is not legislative is not true. sent5: if the premises does smash the fact that it is a raw and it wakes frogbit is not correct. sent6: if the anther is not non-psychogenic then the fact that it is a smash and it does not reflect antipope is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it wakes frogbit and is legislative is incorrect. sent8: the fact that the interpreter does wake frogbit but it is not legislative is not right if it does wake grotto. sent9: if the premises is a kind of a smash and it wakes frogbit then the interpreter wakes grotto. sent10: the interpreter does smash. sent11: the interpreter is not a kind of a raw if the premises does wake frogbit and it wakes grotto. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the interpreter smashes and does wake grotto.; assump1 -> int1: the interpreter wakes grotto.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the interpreter does wake frogbit but it is non-legislative is not true.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it does wake frogbit and is not legislative is not right.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the premises is not a raw.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__