the ogee is not inadmissible.
sent1: the ogee is not loopy. sent2: if the fact that something overdoses and is experiential is not correct it is not auxetic. sent3: if the semanticist is not inadmissible then the fact that the coffee is Gibraltarian but it does not company escapist is not right. sent4: the fact that the burgrass does not clear drone is true. sent5: that the escapist is adjudicative and/or is a foretaste is not true if there is something such that it is not Rooseveltian. sent6: if that the coffee is a kind of non-loopy thing that is not a toy does not hold then it does not company escapist. sent7: the fact that that the coffee is not loopy and is a toy hold does not hold. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a quahaug. sent9: the ogee is inadmissible and is not loopy if the coffee is not loopy. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is not non-adjudicative and/or it is a foretaste does not hold then that the ritz is emotional is correct. sent11: something is not a kind of a Gibraltarian and is not a quahaug. sent12: if the coffee is not loopy then the ogee is not loopy. sent13: the ogee companies escapist if the fact that the coffee is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not companies escapist is not right. sent14: the burgrass is carnivorous. sent15: if a non-auxetic thing is carnivorous then it is not Rooseveltian. sent16: the fact that the coffee is loopy but not a toy does not hold. sent17: the semanticist is not inadmissible if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a quahaug and it signs ranger is false. sent18: that something is not a quahaug but it does sign ranger is not true if it is emotional. sent19: if there is something such that it is both not Gibraltarian and not a quahaug then the coffee companies escapist. sent20: if the fact that the burgrass does not clear drone hold then that it overdoses and it is experiential is incorrect. sent21: there is something such that it is both a Gibraltarian and not a quahaug.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the coffee is not loopy and it does not toy does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: that the coffee does not company escapist hold.; sent11 & sent19 -> int2: the fact that the coffee companies escapist is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the coffee is non-loopy thing that is not a toy.; int4 -> int5: the coffee is non-loopy.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the ogee is inadmissible and non-loopy.; int6 -> hypothesis;
the ogee companies escapist.
sent18 -> int7: if the ritz is emotional the fact that it is not a quahaug and it does sign ranger does not hold.; sent15 -> int8: the burgrass is not Rooseveltian if it is both not auxetic and carnivorous.; sent2 -> int9: the burgrass is not auxetic if that it overdoses and is experiential does not hold.; sent20 & sent4 -> int10: the fact that the burgrass does overdose and is experiential is wrong.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the burgrass is not auxetic.; int11 & sent14 -> int12: the fact that the burgrass is not auxetic but it is carnivorous is not wrong.; int8 & int12 -> int13: the burgrass is not Rooseveltian.; int13 -> int14: something is not Rooseveltian.; int14 & sent5 -> int15: the fact that the escapist is adjudicative and/or it is a foretaste is incorrect.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that that it is adjudicative and/or it is a foretaste is not correct.; int16 & sent10 -> int17: the ritz is emotional.; int7 & int17 -> int18: that the ritz is not a quahaug and signs ranger is wrong.; int18 -> int19: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a quahaug and does sign ranger is wrong.; int19 & sent17 -> int20: the semanticist is not inadmissible.; sent3 & int20 -> int21: that the coffee is a Gibraltarian and does not company escapist is not right.; sent13 & int21 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the ogee is not inadmissible. ; $context$ = sent1: the ogee is not loopy. sent2: if the fact that something overdoses and is experiential is not correct it is not auxetic. sent3: if the semanticist is not inadmissible then the fact that the coffee is Gibraltarian but it does not company escapist is not right. sent4: the fact that the burgrass does not clear drone is true. sent5: that the escapist is adjudicative and/or is a foretaste is not true if there is something such that it is not Rooseveltian. sent6: if that the coffee is a kind of non-loopy thing that is not a toy does not hold then it does not company escapist. sent7: the fact that that the coffee is not loopy and is a toy hold does not hold. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a quahaug. sent9: the ogee is inadmissible and is not loopy if the coffee is not loopy. sent10: if there exists something such that that it is not non-adjudicative and/or it is a foretaste does not hold then that the ritz is emotional is correct. sent11: something is not a kind of a Gibraltarian and is not a quahaug. sent12: if the coffee is not loopy then the ogee is not loopy. sent13: the ogee companies escapist if the fact that the coffee is a kind of Gibraltarian thing that does not companies escapist is not right. sent14: the burgrass is carnivorous. sent15: if a non-auxetic thing is carnivorous then it is not Rooseveltian. sent16: the fact that the coffee is loopy but not a toy does not hold. sent17: the semanticist is not inadmissible if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a quahaug and it signs ranger is false. sent18: that something is not a quahaug but it does sign ranger is not true if it is emotional. sent19: if there is something such that it is both not Gibraltarian and not a quahaug then the coffee companies escapist. sent20: if the fact that the burgrass does not clear drone hold then that it overdoses and it is experiential is incorrect. sent21: there is something such that it is both a Gibraltarian and not a quahaug. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the coffee is not loopy and it does not toy does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: that the coffee does not company escapist hold.; sent11 & sent19 -> int2: the fact that the coffee companies escapist is not false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the coffee is non-loopy thing that is not a toy.; int4 -> int5: the coffee is non-loopy.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the ogee is inadmissible and non-loopy.; int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__