the northwester is not a bowler but it does scent wood-fern.
sent1: if the fact that the selenium is not continual and it is non-cathodic is false then the wood-fern is non-cathodic. sent2: the meadowgrass is continual. sent3: the irregular whistles. sent4: there exists something such that it is a bowler. sent5: something is not continual and not Darwinian if it does compel therapy. sent6: that the meadowgrass is non-Darwinian is not incorrect if the irregular is a kind of a whistling that compels therapy. sent7: the wood-fern is continual if the fact that it is not intrasentential or it does not scent empire or both is wrong. sent8: if that the wood-fern either does not scent empire or is not cathodic or both is false it is a kind of a bowler. sent9: the irregular does compel therapy if that it does not run tetrapod and it does not compel therapy does not hold. sent10: if the meadowgrass does scent empire then the wood-fern is a Darwinian. sent11: if the meadowgrass is not cathodic the fact that the selenium is a Darwinian is right. sent12: the meadowgrass is a Darwinian if the wood-fern does not scent empire. sent13: if that the selenium is not cathodic and/or it does not scent empire is incorrect it is a bowler. sent14: if the wood-fern is not cathodic the northwester is not a bowler but it scents wood-fern. sent15: if something is Darwinian the fact that the northwester is not a kind of a bowler and scents wood-fern is not correct. sent16: that the northwester is a kind of a bowler and it scents wood-fern is wrong. sent17: if the wood-fern is continual then that the selenium is cathodic is not wrong. sent18: the fact that something does mismarry is right. sent19: if there exists something such that it is Darwinian the fact that the northwester is a bowler that does scent wood-fern does not hold. sent20: the selenium is not cathodic. sent21: that the meadowgrass is a kind of a Darwinian if the wood-fern is not intrasentential is true. sent22: the selenium scents empire if the wood-fern is not cathodic. sent23: the fact that the selenium is not a kind of a bowler but it is cathodic does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it is continual hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that either the wood-fern is not intrasentential or it does not scent empire or both is not right.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the wood-fern is continual.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the selenium is cathodic.; int2 & sent20 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the wood-fern is not intrasentential and/or it does not scent empire hold.; int4 & sent21 & sent12 -> int5: the meadowgrass is a kind of a Darwinian.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is a kind of a Darwinian.; int6 & sent15 -> hypothesis;
the northwester is not a kind of a bowler and scents wood-fern.
$hypothesis$ = the northwester is not a bowler but it does scent wood-fern. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the selenium is not continual and it is non-cathodic is false then the wood-fern is non-cathodic. sent2: the meadowgrass is continual. sent3: the irregular whistles. sent4: there exists something such that it is a bowler. sent5: something is not continual and not Darwinian if it does compel therapy. sent6: that the meadowgrass is non-Darwinian is not incorrect if the irregular is a kind of a whistling that compels therapy. sent7: the wood-fern is continual if the fact that it is not intrasentential or it does not scent empire or both is wrong. sent8: if that the wood-fern either does not scent empire or is not cathodic or both is false it is a kind of a bowler. sent9: the irregular does compel therapy if that it does not run tetrapod and it does not compel therapy does not hold. sent10: if the meadowgrass does scent empire then the wood-fern is a Darwinian. sent11: if the meadowgrass is not cathodic the fact that the selenium is a Darwinian is right. sent12: the meadowgrass is a Darwinian if the wood-fern does not scent empire. sent13: if that the selenium is not cathodic and/or it does not scent empire is incorrect it is a bowler. sent14: if the wood-fern is not cathodic the northwester is not a bowler but it scents wood-fern. sent15: if something is Darwinian the fact that the northwester is not a kind of a bowler and scents wood-fern is not correct. sent16: that the northwester is a kind of a bowler and it scents wood-fern is wrong. sent17: if the wood-fern is continual then that the selenium is cathodic is not wrong. sent18: the fact that something does mismarry is right. sent19: if there exists something such that it is Darwinian the fact that the northwester is a bowler that does scent wood-fern does not hold. sent20: the selenium is not cathodic. sent21: that the meadowgrass is a kind of a Darwinian if the wood-fern is not intrasentential is true. sent22: the selenium scents empire if the wood-fern is not cathodic. sent23: the fact that the selenium is not a kind of a bowler but it is cathodic does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it is continual hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that either the wood-fern is not intrasentential or it does not scent empire or both is not right.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the wood-fern is continual.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the selenium is cathodic.; int2 & sent20 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the wood-fern is not intrasentential and/or it does not scent empire hold.; int4 & sent21 & sent12 -> int5: the meadowgrass is a kind of a Darwinian.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is a kind of a Darwinian.; int6 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__