the Cockney is connate.
sent1: that the preemie is not a Osasco and it is not photic is false if the toucher is not a kind of a Sverdrup. sent2: the preemie is not a kind of a Osasco and it is not photic. sent3: if that that the toucher is not a hitch or does not refer or both is not right is not false that the Chechen is a Sverdrup is right. sent4: the Cockney is photic. sent5: something is a kind of a digestive but it is not a chervil if it is not a Betula. sent6: something is not proper and/or does coat hysteroscopy if it is a Sverdrup. sent7: if the Cockney does refer and is a Osasco it is not connate. sent8: if the Cockney does not redden Baptist then either it is a kind of a digestive or it is a chervil or both. sent9: the Cockney is not connate if it is not a digestive and/or it is a kind of a chervil. sent10: the toucher is not a Betula if the preemie cases. sent11: the Cockney is a kind of a hitch if the toucher is a Sverdrup. sent12: if that the toucher hitches hold then the fact that the Cockney is a kind of a Sverdrup is true. sent13: if something that is a hitch refers then it does not redden Baptist. sent14: if the toucher is not a kind of a Sverdrup then that the preemie is not a Osasco and is photic is false. sent15: if the toucher does redden Baptist it does refer and is not a kind of a Sverdrup. sent16: the Cockney is connate if the toucher is connate and not a hitch. sent17: if something is not a digestive the fact that it does not redden Baptist hold. sent18: the Cockney is not a Sverdrup. sent19: the toucher does redden Baptist if it is both a digestive and not a chervil. sent20: the Cockney is a kind of a digestive or it is a chervil or both. sent21: if the Cockney does not redden Baptist it is not a digestive and/or it is a chervil. sent22: if the Cockney is not digestive it is not connate. sent23: the preemie is not photic. sent24: the Cockney refers. sent25: the fact that the preemie is not a Osasco but it is photic is not true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the toucher is not a Sverdrup.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the preemie is not a kind of a Osasco and it is not photic is not correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the toucher is a Sverdrup.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the Cockney hitches.; int4 & sent24 -> int5: the Cockney does hitch and refers.; sent13 -> int6: the Cockney does not redden Baptist if it is a kind of a hitch and it refers.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the Cockney does not redden Baptist.; int7 & sent21 -> int8: either the Cockney is not a kind of a digestive or it is a chervil or both.; int8 & sent9 -> hypothesis;
the Chechen is not proper or it does coat hysteroscopy or both.
sent6 -> int9: if the fact that the Chechen is a kind of a Sverdrup is not false then either it is not proper or it coats hysteroscopy or both.; sent17 -> int10: the toucher does not redden Baptist if it is not a kind of a digestive.;
$hypothesis$ = the Cockney is connate. ; $context$ = sent1: that the preemie is not a Osasco and it is not photic is false if the toucher is not a kind of a Sverdrup. sent2: the preemie is not a kind of a Osasco and it is not photic. sent3: if that that the toucher is not a hitch or does not refer or both is not right is not false that the Chechen is a Sverdrup is right. sent4: the Cockney is photic. sent5: something is a kind of a digestive but it is not a chervil if it is not a Betula. sent6: something is not proper and/or does coat hysteroscopy if it is a Sverdrup. sent7: if the Cockney does refer and is a Osasco it is not connate. sent8: if the Cockney does not redden Baptist then either it is a kind of a digestive or it is a chervil or both. sent9: the Cockney is not connate if it is not a digestive and/or it is a kind of a chervil. sent10: the toucher is not a Betula if the preemie cases. sent11: the Cockney is a kind of a hitch if the toucher is a Sverdrup. sent12: if that the toucher hitches hold then the fact that the Cockney is a kind of a Sverdrup is true. sent13: if something that is a hitch refers then it does not redden Baptist. sent14: if the toucher is not a kind of a Sverdrup then that the preemie is not a Osasco and is photic is false. sent15: if the toucher does redden Baptist it does refer and is not a kind of a Sverdrup. sent16: the Cockney is connate if the toucher is connate and not a hitch. sent17: if something is not a digestive the fact that it does not redden Baptist hold. sent18: the Cockney is not a Sverdrup. sent19: the toucher does redden Baptist if it is both a digestive and not a chervil. sent20: the Cockney is a kind of a digestive or it is a chervil or both. sent21: if the Cockney does not redden Baptist it is not a digestive and/or it is a chervil. sent22: if the Cockney is not digestive it is not connate. sent23: the preemie is not photic. sent24: the Cockney refers. sent25: the fact that the preemie is not a Osasco but it is photic is not true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the toucher is not a Sverdrup.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the preemie is not a kind of a Osasco and it is not photic is not correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the toucher is a Sverdrup.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: the Cockney hitches.; int4 & sent24 -> int5: the Cockney does hitch and refers.; sent13 -> int6: the Cockney does not redden Baptist if it is a kind of a hitch and it refers.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the Cockney does not redden Baptist.; int7 & sent21 -> int8: either the Cockney is not a kind of a digestive or it is a chervil or both.; int8 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__