the phlebotomist does not cox.
sent1: the phlebotomist is not a kind of a flute and does not cox if the metallic is not a soapstone. sent2: something is not a soapstone if it is not an orthodontist or it is not a soapstone or both. sent3: if that the fact that something is protozoological and it is penetrable is true is not right then it is not a kind of an orthodontist. sent4: the fact that that something is not actinal is right hold. sent5: if something is non-intraventricular the fact that it is protozoological and it is penetrable does not hold. sent6: the bough is bracteal and snuffles adulation if it is not a kind of a floxuridine. sent7: if something is not actinal the fact that the phlebotomist does not nail Nansen and is actinal is false. sent8: the metallic is not a kind of a soapstone if the counterweight is not a soapstone. sent9: something is actinal. sent10: the counterweight is not intraventricular if the chebab is not intraventricular. sent11: if there is something such that it is not actinal the fact that the phlebotomist nails Nansen and is actinal is wrong. sent12: if the phlebotomist does not cox it does not nail Nansen. sent13: the fact that the colophon does cox is not false. sent14: something does not cox. sent15: the phlebotomist is not Puranic. sent16: the bough is not a floxuridine if the fact that it is non-impassable thing that is a floxuridine does not hold. sent17: something is not a kind of a revolutionism. sent18: the fact that the bough is non-impassable thing that is a floxuridine is incorrect. sent19: if the phlebotomist does not cox it does not nail Nansen and is not non-actinal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the phlebotomist does not cox hold.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the phlebotomist does not nail Nansen and is actinal.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: that the phlebotomist does not nail Nansen but it is actinal is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the phlebotomist does not cox.
sent2 -> int4: if the counterweight is not an orthodontist or not a soapstone or both then the fact that it is not a soapstone is not wrong.; sent3 -> int5: the counterweight is not an orthodontist if the fact that it is protozoological and it is penetrable is not true.; sent5 -> int6: the fact that the counterweight is protozoological and it is not impenetrable is incorrect if it is not intraventricular.; sent16 & sent18 -> int7: the bough is not a kind of a floxuridine.; sent6 & int7 -> int8: the bough is a kind of bracteal thing that does snuffle adulation.; int8 -> int9: something is not non-bracteal and snuffles adulation.;
$hypothesis$ = the phlebotomist does not cox. ; $context$ = sent1: the phlebotomist is not a kind of a flute and does not cox if the metallic is not a soapstone. sent2: something is not a soapstone if it is not an orthodontist or it is not a soapstone or both. sent3: if that the fact that something is protozoological and it is penetrable is true is not right then it is not a kind of an orthodontist. sent4: the fact that that something is not actinal is right hold. sent5: if something is non-intraventricular the fact that it is protozoological and it is penetrable does not hold. sent6: the bough is bracteal and snuffles adulation if it is not a kind of a floxuridine. sent7: if something is not actinal the fact that the phlebotomist does not nail Nansen and is actinal is false. sent8: the metallic is not a kind of a soapstone if the counterweight is not a soapstone. sent9: something is actinal. sent10: the counterweight is not intraventricular if the chebab is not intraventricular. sent11: if there is something such that it is not actinal the fact that the phlebotomist nails Nansen and is actinal is wrong. sent12: if the phlebotomist does not cox it does not nail Nansen. sent13: the fact that the colophon does cox is not false. sent14: something does not cox. sent15: the phlebotomist is not Puranic. sent16: the bough is not a floxuridine if the fact that it is non-impassable thing that is a floxuridine does not hold. sent17: something is not a kind of a revolutionism. sent18: the fact that the bough is non-impassable thing that is a floxuridine is incorrect. sent19: if the phlebotomist does not cox it does not nail Nansen and is not non-actinal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the phlebotomist does not cox hold.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: the phlebotomist does not nail Nansen and is actinal.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: that the phlebotomist does not nail Nansen but it is actinal is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__