that something is ascetic and it does ding boisterousness does not hold.
sent1: the barroom does not outgeneral Mylar and is not a viewers. sent2: the utterer is a keratoscope that is not a rabbi. sent3: the strawflower does ding boisterousness. sent4: if that the utterer is a kind of a keratoscope and is not a rabbi is incorrect then the betatron is not a keratoscope. sent5: there exists something such that it is a ritual that is unapproachable. sent6: the utterer dings boisterousness and it dings sublease. sent7: the utterer is a kind of a flibbertigibbet and it is nonreturnable. sent8: if the utterer outgenerals betatron it is a sick. sent9: the utterer does ding sublease. sent10: something does ding boisterousness but it does not outgeneral mayoress if it is not a keratoscope. sent11: the cingulum is a phone and does ding boisterousness. sent12: something is ascetic. sent13: the pommel is not non-ascetic. sent14: the utterer is a kind of a puff. sent15: something is a rabbi that dings sublease. sent16: something is a rustle if it is a Egyptologist. sent17: that either the barroom is ascetic or it does ding sublease or both does not hold if it does not outgeneral Mylar. sent18: something is a metformin if it is androgynous. sent19: something is ascetic if it is a DINK. sent20: the utterer is a kind of a firewood and is psychopharmacological. sent21: the utterer is not a kind of a rabbi. sent22: something is a DINK if it is a kind of a keratoscope. sent23: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a rabbi that does ding boisterousness is right. sent24: there is something such that it does ding boisterousness.
sent2 -> int1: the utterer is a keratoscope.; sent22 -> int2: if the utterer is a keratoscope it is a DINK.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utterer is a kind of a DINK.; sent19 -> int4: the utterer is ascetic if it is a DINK.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the utterer is ascetic.; sent6 -> int6: the fact that the utterer does ding boisterousness is not wrong.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the utterer is ascetic and does ding boisterousness.; int7 -> hypothesis;
the betatron dings boisterousness but it does not outgeneral mayoress.
sent10 -> int8: if the betatron is not a keratoscope then it dings boisterousness and does not outgeneral mayoress.; sent1 -> int9: the barroom does not outgeneral Mylar.; sent17 & int9 -> int10: that the barroom is ascetic and/or does ding sublease is not true.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that the fact that it is ascetic or does ding sublease or both does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = that something is ascetic and it does ding boisterousness does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the barroom does not outgeneral Mylar and is not a viewers. sent2: the utterer is a keratoscope that is not a rabbi. sent3: the strawflower does ding boisterousness. sent4: if that the utterer is a kind of a keratoscope and is not a rabbi is incorrect then the betatron is not a keratoscope. sent5: there exists something such that it is a ritual that is unapproachable. sent6: the utterer dings boisterousness and it dings sublease. sent7: the utterer is a kind of a flibbertigibbet and it is nonreturnable. sent8: if the utterer outgenerals betatron it is a sick. sent9: the utterer does ding sublease. sent10: something does ding boisterousness but it does not outgeneral mayoress if it is not a keratoscope. sent11: the cingulum is a phone and does ding boisterousness. sent12: something is ascetic. sent13: the pommel is not non-ascetic. sent14: the utterer is a kind of a puff. sent15: something is a rabbi that dings sublease. sent16: something is a rustle if it is a Egyptologist. sent17: that either the barroom is ascetic or it does ding sublease or both does not hold if it does not outgeneral Mylar. sent18: something is a metformin if it is androgynous. sent19: something is ascetic if it is a DINK. sent20: the utterer is a kind of a firewood and is psychopharmacological. sent21: the utterer is not a kind of a rabbi. sent22: something is a DINK if it is a kind of a keratoscope. sent23: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a rabbi that does ding boisterousness is right. sent24: there is something such that it does ding boisterousness. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: the utterer is a keratoscope.; sent22 -> int2: if the utterer is a keratoscope it is a DINK.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utterer is a kind of a DINK.; sent19 -> int4: the utterer is ascetic if it is a DINK.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the utterer is ascetic.; sent6 -> int6: the fact that the utterer does ding boisterousness is not wrong.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the utterer is ascetic and does ding boisterousness.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__