the fact that if the usherette is not non-appellate then the rifampin firebombs shoeful is not true.
sent1: the lodging does not firebomb shoeful. sent2: that if the usherette firebombs shoeful the lodging is appellate but it is not a kind of a managership hold. sent3: the lodging firebombs lodging. sent4: the lodging is not a kind of a finger if it is a kind of appellate thing that is not a managership. sent5: the fact that the rifampin manicures if the fact that the rifampin does not firebomb shoeful and firebombs lodging is wrong is correct. sent6: something is a kind of a managership if that it does not manicure and does firebomb lodging is not true. sent7: the lodging is a kind of non-appellate thing that is a pun. sent8: the usherette is not appellate if the lodging is not a manicure and does firebomb lodging. sent9: if the rifampin is a managership then the lodging firebombs shoeful. sent10: something does firebomb lodging if that it does firebomb shoeful is not false. sent11: the rifampin does firebomb lodging. sent12: the rifampin does firebomb shoeful if the lodging is a kind of a managership. sent13: if the lodging does not firebomb lodging then it is a managership. sent14: if the usherette is a managership then the lodging is appellate. sent15: something is a managership if it does not firebomb lodging. sent16: the lodging is not appellate and firebombs lodging. sent17: the lodging is appellate if the usherette does not firebomb lodging and is a manicure.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the lodging does not manicure and firebombs lodging.; sent8 & assump2 -> int1: the usherette is not appellate.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the usherette is appellate.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the lodging does not manicure and firebombs lodging is not true.; sent6 -> int4: if that the lodging does not manicure and does firebomb lodging is not correct it is a managership.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the lodging is a kind of a managership.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: that the rifampin does firebomb shoeful hold.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
that the Ewe is a kind of non-credible thing that does finger is not correct.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the usherette is not non-appellate then the rifampin firebombs shoeful is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the lodging does not firebomb shoeful. sent2: that if the usherette firebombs shoeful the lodging is appellate but it is not a kind of a managership hold. sent3: the lodging firebombs lodging. sent4: the lodging is not a kind of a finger if it is a kind of appellate thing that is not a managership. sent5: the fact that the rifampin manicures if the fact that the rifampin does not firebomb shoeful and firebombs lodging is wrong is correct. sent6: something is a kind of a managership if that it does not manicure and does firebomb lodging is not true. sent7: the lodging is a kind of non-appellate thing that is a pun. sent8: the usherette is not appellate if the lodging is not a manicure and does firebomb lodging. sent9: if the rifampin is a managership then the lodging firebombs shoeful. sent10: something does firebomb lodging if that it does firebomb shoeful is not false. sent11: the rifampin does firebomb lodging. sent12: the rifampin does firebomb shoeful if the lodging is a kind of a managership. sent13: if the lodging does not firebomb lodging then it is a managership. sent14: if the usherette is a managership then the lodging is appellate. sent15: something is a managership if it does not firebomb lodging. sent16: the lodging is not appellate and firebombs lodging. sent17: the lodging is appellate if the usherette does not firebomb lodging and is a manicure. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the lodging does not manicure and firebombs lodging.; sent8 & assump2 -> int1: the usherette is not appellate.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the usherette is appellate.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the lodging does not manicure and firebombs lodging is not true.; sent6 -> int4: if that the lodging does not manicure and does firebomb lodging is not correct it is a managership.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the lodging is a kind of a managership.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: that the rifampin does firebomb shoeful hold.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__