the audiogram is cursorial.
sent1: the baldachin is not cursorial. sent2: if the liveryman is not aphanitic the audiogram is not cursorial. sent3: the krait is not cursorial if the audiogram does not come subordinating. sent4: the krait does mourn. sent5: if that the baldachin does not mourn is true then the fact that the liveryman is not aphanitic is not false. sent6: if the krait is cecal thing that comes subordinating then that the tangle does not restrain dinner is right. sent7: the liveryman is not aphanitic if that the baldachin is Shuha thing that mourns is not correct. sent8: the fact that that the baldachin restrains dinner and it is a kind of a faineance is correct is incorrect if the tangle does not mourn. sent9: the tangle does restrain dinner if the baldachin is a faineance. sent10: the tangle is cursorial or is aphanitic or both if it does not come subordinating. sent11: that the baldachin is not a faineance and/or it does not mourn does not hold if the tangle is Shuha. sent12: the krait comes subordinating. sent13: the krait is aphanitic. sent14: the krait is cecal and does come subordinating. sent15: that the baldachin is Shuha and it does mourn is wrong if it is not a faineance. sent16: the tangle does mourn and is an internee.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the baldachin is a kind of a faineance.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the tangle restrains dinner.; sent6 & sent14 -> int2: the tangle does not restrain dinner.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the baldachin is not a faineance.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: that the baldachin is Shuha and does mourn does not hold.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the liveryman is not aphanitic.; int6 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the daughter-in-law does not restrain dinner.
$hypothesis$ = the audiogram is cursorial. ; $context$ = sent1: the baldachin is not cursorial. sent2: if the liveryman is not aphanitic the audiogram is not cursorial. sent3: the krait is not cursorial if the audiogram does not come subordinating. sent4: the krait does mourn. sent5: if that the baldachin does not mourn is true then the fact that the liveryman is not aphanitic is not false. sent6: if the krait is cecal thing that comes subordinating then that the tangle does not restrain dinner is right. sent7: the liveryman is not aphanitic if that the baldachin is Shuha thing that mourns is not correct. sent8: the fact that that the baldachin restrains dinner and it is a kind of a faineance is correct is incorrect if the tangle does not mourn. sent9: the tangle does restrain dinner if the baldachin is a faineance. sent10: the tangle is cursorial or is aphanitic or both if it does not come subordinating. sent11: that the baldachin is not a faineance and/or it does not mourn does not hold if the tangle is Shuha. sent12: the krait comes subordinating. sent13: the krait is aphanitic. sent14: the krait is cecal and does come subordinating. sent15: that the baldachin is Shuha and it does mourn is wrong if it is not a faineance. sent16: the tangle does mourn and is an internee. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the baldachin is a kind of a faineance.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the tangle restrains dinner.; sent6 & sent14 -> int2: the tangle does not restrain dinner.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the baldachin is not a faineance.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: that the baldachin is Shuha and does mourn does not hold.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the liveryman is not aphanitic.; int6 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__