the goldenrod is pudendal and/or it is a kind of a shofar.
sent1: the fact that the orphrey is bibliotic and it peruses Trilisa does not hold if the chalcanthite does not peruse osteology. sent2: if the hepatotoxin is not a strider then it is not pectineal or is lentic or both. sent3: the orphrey is Andorran and/or is imperishable. sent4: the chalcanthite does not peruse osteology if either the hepatotoxin is not pectineal or it is lentic or both. sent5: the orphrey is either a Andorran or imperishable or both if it does not peruse osteology. sent6: if the orphrey is not emmetropic then the chalcanthite is bibliotic. sent7: if that the chalcanthite is not bibliotic or does not peruse Trilisa or both does not hold that the goldenrod is pudendal hold. sent8: the fact that the goldenrod is pudendal is right if the fact that either the chalcanthite is bibliotic or it does not peruse Trilisa or both does not hold. sent9: that the orphrey does not peruse osteology is not incorrect. sent10: if the orphrey does not peruse osteology it either is a Andorran or is not imperishable or both. sent11: the chalcanthite is bibliotic. sent12: the fact that the orphrey does peruse osteology or is not emmetropic or both is false if it is bibliotic. sent13: if the orphrey is not emmetropic then the fact that either the chalcanthite is not bibliotic or it does not peruse Trilisa or both does not hold. sent14: if the orphrey is not pudendal then it is Andorran and/or it is not emmetropic. sent15: the orphrey is imperishable. sent16: if the orphrey is emmetropic the fact that it is a Andorran or not imperishable or both is wrong. sent17: That the osteology does not peruse orphrey is not incorrect. sent18: there exists nothing such that it is a strider and it is bulbaceous. sent19: if something is not emmetropic then the fact that either it is pudendal or it is a shofar or both is false. sent20: if the orphrey is emmetropic it is not perishable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the orphrey is emmetropic.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: that the orphrey is either Andorran or not imperishable or both is not right.; sent10 & sent9 -> int2: the orphrey is Andorran or not imperishable or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the orphrey is not emmetropic.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: that the chalcanthite is not bibliotic or does not peruse Trilisa or both is not right.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the goldenrod is pudendal.; int6 -> hypothesis;
that either the goldenrod is pudendal or it is a kind of a shofar or both does not hold.
sent19 -> int7: if the goldenrod is not emmetropic the fact that it is pudendal and/or is a shofar is not true.; sent18 -> int8: that the gatepost is a strider and bulbaceous is incorrect.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that the fact that it is a strider and it is bulbaceous is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the goldenrod is pudendal and/or it is a kind of a shofar. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the orphrey is bibliotic and it peruses Trilisa does not hold if the chalcanthite does not peruse osteology. sent2: if the hepatotoxin is not a strider then it is not pectineal or is lentic or both. sent3: the orphrey is Andorran and/or is imperishable. sent4: the chalcanthite does not peruse osteology if either the hepatotoxin is not pectineal or it is lentic or both. sent5: the orphrey is either a Andorran or imperishable or both if it does not peruse osteology. sent6: if the orphrey is not emmetropic then the chalcanthite is bibliotic. sent7: if that the chalcanthite is not bibliotic or does not peruse Trilisa or both does not hold that the goldenrod is pudendal hold. sent8: the fact that the goldenrod is pudendal is right if the fact that either the chalcanthite is bibliotic or it does not peruse Trilisa or both does not hold. sent9: that the orphrey does not peruse osteology is not incorrect. sent10: if the orphrey does not peruse osteology it either is a Andorran or is not imperishable or both. sent11: the chalcanthite is bibliotic. sent12: the fact that the orphrey does peruse osteology or is not emmetropic or both is false if it is bibliotic. sent13: if the orphrey is not emmetropic then the fact that either the chalcanthite is not bibliotic or it does not peruse Trilisa or both does not hold. sent14: if the orphrey is not pudendal then it is Andorran and/or it is not emmetropic. sent15: the orphrey is imperishable. sent16: if the orphrey is emmetropic the fact that it is a Andorran or not imperishable or both is wrong. sent17: That the osteology does not peruse orphrey is not incorrect. sent18: there exists nothing such that it is a strider and it is bulbaceous. sent19: if something is not emmetropic then the fact that either it is pudendal or it is a shofar or both is false. sent20: if the orphrey is emmetropic it is not perishable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the orphrey is emmetropic.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: that the orphrey is either Andorran or not imperishable or both is not right.; sent10 & sent9 -> int2: the orphrey is Andorran or not imperishable or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the orphrey is not emmetropic.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: that the chalcanthite is not bibliotic or does not peruse Trilisa or both is not right.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the goldenrod is pudendal.; int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__