the saskatoon does wrestle.
sent1: the fact that something is not substantial and is not a Sulidae is false if it does ventilate ducat. sent2: that the Crow is intangible is correct if the apprehender is a Stanley. sent3: the apprehender is a kind of an intangible if it is not a Nabu. sent4: the benzene is a Stanley if the apprehender is an intangible. sent5: that the caretaker does hatch but it is not a demolition does not hold. sent6: if the benzene is a Stanley then it is not a Sulidae. sent7: if the saskatoon premeditates lyreflower then the fact that it is not a kind of a wrestle is right. sent8: the benzene is not a Sulidae. sent9: the saskatoon is non-vitreous thing that mucks. sent10: the benzene does ventilate ducat if it is a Sulidae and it is substantial. sent11: the fact that that the saskatoon does premeditate lyreflower hold if the benzene ventilates ducat hold. sent12: if that something is not substantial and is not a Sulidae is incorrect then it is a Stanley. sent13: something does wrestle and it is a Stanley if it is not intangible. sent14: the apprehender does ventilate ducat if the benzene does premeditate lyreflower. sent15: the saskatoon is tangible thing that is substantial if the apprehender is a kind of a Sulidae. sent16: the fact that the benzene does ventilate ducat is not incorrect if that it is not a Sulidae and it is substantial is not incorrect. sent17: if that the apprehender is a kind of a Nabu that does not muck is not right then it is an intangible. sent18: if the apprehender is a kind of an intangible then it does not ventilate ducat and it is a kind of a Stanley. sent19: if the apprehender does not wrestle then it does premeditate lyreflower and it ventilates ducat. sent20: something that is not inviolable is both not a wrestle and non-backed. sent21: if the benzene is a kind of a Stanley then it is not a Sulidae and it is substantial. sent22: the fact that the apprehender is a Nabu that does not muck is not correct.
sent17 & sent22 -> int1: the apprehender is an intangible.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the benzene is a kind of a Stanley.; int2 & sent21 -> int3: the benzene is both not a Sulidae and substantial.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the benzene does ventilate ducat.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the saskatoon premeditates lyreflower.; int5 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the Crow is an intangible.
sent12 -> int6: if the fact that the apprehender is not substantial and is not a Sulidae is false it is a kind of a Stanley.; sent1 -> int7: if the apprehender does ventilate ducat then that it is not substantial and it is not a Sulidae does not hold.; sent20 -> int8: if the apprehender is not inviolable it is both not a wrestle and not backed.;
$hypothesis$ = the saskatoon does wrestle. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not substantial and is not a Sulidae is false if it does ventilate ducat. sent2: that the Crow is intangible is correct if the apprehender is a Stanley. sent3: the apprehender is a kind of an intangible if it is not a Nabu. sent4: the benzene is a Stanley if the apprehender is an intangible. sent5: that the caretaker does hatch but it is not a demolition does not hold. sent6: if the benzene is a Stanley then it is not a Sulidae. sent7: if the saskatoon premeditates lyreflower then the fact that it is not a kind of a wrestle is right. sent8: the benzene is not a Sulidae. sent9: the saskatoon is non-vitreous thing that mucks. sent10: the benzene does ventilate ducat if it is a Sulidae and it is substantial. sent11: the fact that that the saskatoon does premeditate lyreflower hold if the benzene ventilates ducat hold. sent12: if that something is not substantial and is not a Sulidae is incorrect then it is a Stanley. sent13: something does wrestle and it is a Stanley if it is not intangible. sent14: the apprehender does ventilate ducat if the benzene does premeditate lyreflower. sent15: the saskatoon is tangible thing that is substantial if the apprehender is a kind of a Sulidae. sent16: the fact that the benzene does ventilate ducat is not incorrect if that it is not a Sulidae and it is substantial is not incorrect. sent17: if that the apprehender is a kind of a Nabu that does not muck is not right then it is an intangible. sent18: if the apprehender is a kind of an intangible then it does not ventilate ducat and it is a kind of a Stanley. sent19: if the apprehender does not wrestle then it does premeditate lyreflower and it ventilates ducat. sent20: something that is not inviolable is both not a wrestle and non-backed. sent21: if the benzene is a kind of a Stanley then it is not a Sulidae and it is substantial. sent22: the fact that the apprehender is a Nabu that does not muck is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent17 & sent22 -> int1: the apprehender is an intangible.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the benzene is a kind of a Stanley.; int2 & sent21 -> int3: the benzene is both not a Sulidae and substantial.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the benzene does ventilate ducat.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the saskatoon premeditates lyreflower.; int5 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__