the sportswriter is a kind of a parentage and is not soft.
sent1: the sportswriter does not bog favorableness. sent2: something bogs favorableness if it does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent3: that the sportswriter is a parentage and it is soft does not hold. sent4: The favorableness does not bog sportswriter. sent5: that the revenant is a kind of a dieter that is not a marc is not right. sent6: that the sportswriter is both a parentage and not soft does not hold if it does not bog favorableness. sent7: the grugru does not bog favorableness. sent8: if the sportswriter does not bog favorableness then the fact that it is a parentage and soft is not right. sent9: something is a parentage but it is not soft if it does bog favorableness. sent10: the fact that the sportswriter is nosohusial and not soft is incorrect. sent11: if something is incorrect it winnows chauffeur. sent12: if that the servant reproduces is not wrong then the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and does not bog favorableness. sent13: if the fact that the servant is not a kind of a mastodon and it does not bog tenure is false then it does bog tenure. sent14: that the sportswriter is a parentage but it is not chaffy does not hold. sent15: if the sportswriter is not a kind of a twit then the fact that it does winnow agglomerate and does not bog favorableness is wrong. sent16: something that winnows chauffeur does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent17: that the sportswriter is ichorous but it is not a kind of a prestidigitation is not right if it does not bog favorableness. sent18: something is incorrect if it bogs tenure. sent19: if something does winnow chauffeur that it reproduces hold. sent20: the fact that the chauffeur is both a Wilkinson and a stabilizer is false if it does not bog favorableness. sent21: the Warner does not bog favorableness if the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and it does not bog favorableness. sent22: the quoin is a mastodon if the fact that it is not a ballot or it does not winnow servant or both is not correct.
sent6 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the sportswriter is both a parentage and non-soft.
sent9 -> int1: the sportswriter is a kind of a parentage but it is not soft if it does bog favorableness.; sent2 -> int2: that the sportswriter does bog favorableness is right if it does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical.; sent16 -> int3: the sportswriter does not reproduce and it does not unpick sabbatical if the fact that it winnows chauffeur is not false.;
$hypothesis$ = the sportswriter is a kind of a parentage and is not soft. ; $context$ = sent1: the sportswriter does not bog favorableness. sent2: something bogs favorableness if it does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent3: that the sportswriter is a parentage and it is soft does not hold. sent4: The favorableness does not bog sportswriter. sent5: that the revenant is a kind of a dieter that is not a marc is not right. sent6: that the sportswriter is both a parentage and not soft does not hold if it does not bog favorableness. sent7: the grugru does not bog favorableness. sent8: if the sportswriter does not bog favorableness then the fact that it is a parentage and soft is not right. sent9: something is a parentage but it is not soft if it does bog favorableness. sent10: the fact that the sportswriter is nosohusial and not soft is incorrect. sent11: if something is incorrect it winnows chauffeur. sent12: if that the servant reproduces is not wrong then the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and does not bog favorableness. sent13: if the fact that the servant is not a kind of a mastodon and it does not bog tenure is false then it does bog tenure. sent14: that the sportswriter is a parentage but it is not chaffy does not hold. sent15: if the sportswriter is not a kind of a twit then the fact that it does winnow agglomerate and does not bog favorableness is wrong. sent16: something that winnows chauffeur does not reproduce and does not unpick sabbatical. sent17: that the sportswriter is ichorous but it is not a kind of a prestidigitation is not right if it does not bog favorableness. sent18: something is incorrect if it bogs tenure. sent19: if something does winnow chauffeur that it reproduces hold. sent20: the fact that the chauffeur is both a Wilkinson and a stabilizer is false if it does not bog favorableness. sent21: the Warner does not bog favorableness if the sportswriter does not unpick sabbatical and it does not bog favorableness. sent22: the quoin is a mastodon if the fact that it is not a ballot or it does not winnow servant or both is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__