the fact that the casuist does speechify and is anamorphic does not hold.
sent1: the lerot is a greenhouse. sent2: the gastroenterologist is an intellectual. sent3: the casuist does speechify and it is anamorphic if the cheddar does not speechify. sent4: the lerot is not non-Milanese. sent5: something that is an intellectual is a lupine. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it does speechify and is anamorphic does not hold. sent7: the fact that the lerot is an intellectual hold if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a twin that is a diaphoretic is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a twin and is a kind of a diaphoretic does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a twin that is a diaphoretic. sent10: the casuist is anamorphic if there is something such that it is not a kind of a greenhouse. sent11: if the lerot is anamorphic and is convex then the cheddar does not speechify. sent12: the fact that the cheddar does not speechify is not incorrect if the lerot is both not nonintellectual and not non-convex. sent13: if the fact that the lerot is greenhouse is not incorrect the fact that it is convex is not false. sent14: if something is not an intellectual then the fact that it does speechify and it is anamorphic is wrong.
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the lerot is not nonintellectual.; sent13 & sent1 -> int2: the lerot is convex.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lerot is an intellectual and it is convex.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the cheddar does not speechify.; int4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the fact that the casuist speechifies and is anamorphic is not incorrect does not hold.
sent14 -> int5: if the casuist is not a kind of an intellectual that it speechifies and is anamorphic is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the casuist does speechify and is anamorphic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the lerot is a greenhouse. sent2: the gastroenterologist is an intellectual. sent3: the casuist does speechify and it is anamorphic if the cheddar does not speechify. sent4: the lerot is not non-Milanese. sent5: something that is an intellectual is a lupine. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it does speechify and is anamorphic does not hold. sent7: the fact that the lerot is an intellectual hold if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a twin that is a diaphoretic is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a twin and is a kind of a diaphoretic does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that it is a twin that is a diaphoretic. sent10: the casuist is anamorphic if there is something such that it is not a kind of a greenhouse. sent11: if the lerot is anamorphic and is convex then the cheddar does not speechify. sent12: the fact that the cheddar does not speechify is not incorrect if the lerot is both not nonintellectual and not non-convex. sent13: if the fact that the lerot is greenhouse is not incorrect the fact that it is convex is not false. sent14: if something is not an intellectual then the fact that it does speechify and it is anamorphic is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the lerot is not nonintellectual.; sent13 & sent1 -> int2: the lerot is convex.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lerot is an intellectual and it is convex.; int3 & sent12 -> int4: the cheddar does not speechify.; int4 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__