the roulette is not a fedelline but it is precise.
sent1: if something is flimsy it is katabatic. sent2: the fact that the H is both flimsy and not a Deere is wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is flimsy and it is not a kind of a Deere is incorrect then the hygrometer is not flimsy. sent4: if the roulette is a fedelline that is precise then it is katabatic. sent5: something is not Laputan but katabatic if it is not a dose. sent6: if something is not Laputan and it does not dose then it is flimsy. sent7: the roulette is not flimsy. sent8: the adopter is not Laputan and it is not a kind of a dose if the roulette does not absolve. sent9: if the roulette is katabatic it is flimsy. sent10: the roulette is not a fedelline. sent11: if the hygrometer is not flimsy then the roulette is not a fedelline. sent12: that the roulette is a fedelline and it is precise is not correct. sent13: if the hygrometer is apologetics the roulette is a Chattahoochee. sent14: something does not absolve and is not a kind of a Deere if it is a Chattahoochee. sent15: if the fact that the hygrometer is non-apologetics but it is a Erithacus does not hold then it is non-apologetics. sent16: if the roulette is not a fedelline but it is precise it is katabatic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the roulette is not a fedelline but precise.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the roulette is katabatic.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the roulette is flimsy.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the adopter is katabatic.
sent1 -> int4: if the adopter is flimsy then it is katabatic.; sent6 -> int5: the adopter is flimsy if it is non-Laputan thing that does not dose.; sent14 -> int6: if the roulette is a Chattahoochee it does not absolve and is not a kind of a Deere.;
$hypothesis$ = the roulette is not a fedelline but it is precise. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is flimsy it is katabatic. sent2: the fact that the H is both flimsy and not a Deere is wrong. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is flimsy and it is not a kind of a Deere is incorrect then the hygrometer is not flimsy. sent4: if the roulette is a fedelline that is precise then it is katabatic. sent5: something is not Laputan but katabatic if it is not a dose. sent6: if something is not Laputan and it does not dose then it is flimsy. sent7: the roulette is not flimsy. sent8: the adopter is not Laputan and it is not a kind of a dose if the roulette does not absolve. sent9: if the roulette is katabatic it is flimsy. sent10: the roulette is not a fedelline. sent11: if the hygrometer is not flimsy then the roulette is not a fedelline. sent12: that the roulette is a fedelline and it is precise is not correct. sent13: if the hygrometer is apologetics the roulette is a Chattahoochee. sent14: something does not absolve and is not a kind of a Deere if it is a Chattahoochee. sent15: if the fact that the hygrometer is non-apologetics but it is a Erithacus does not hold then it is non-apologetics. sent16: if the roulette is not a fedelline but it is precise it is katabatic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the roulette is not a fedelline but precise.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the roulette is katabatic.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the roulette is flimsy.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__