the seafood does summarize.
sent1: that the seafood does not launch Casanova is not false. sent2: the escapement does launch burdened. sent3: the buddy is peroneal. sent4: the buddy does summarize and is peroneal. sent5: the buddy is a kind of peroneal thing that does not launch Casanova. sent6: that the fact that the cornhusk is not a kind of a Shreveport and does attenuate is not false is wrong. sent7: the seafood does not summarize if there exists something such that the fact that it launches burdened and does not launch Casanova is false. sent8: the buddy is a zip and it is peroneal. sent9: there exists something such that it launches burdened. sent10: that the attachment is a Borago but it does not summarize is not correct. sent11: the fact that the buddy does not launch Casanova is not wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that it launches burdened and it does not launch Casanova the buddy is not a zip. sent13: the escapement is not a zip. sent14: there exists something such that that it launches burdened and launches Casanova is not true. sent15: the fact that the pilot pigments and is not aldermanic does not hold. sent16: the hippopotamus does launch burdened. sent17: the buddy is a kind of a Scotch that does not strangulate Lubumbashi.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the escapement launches burdened but it does not launch Casanova.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it launches burdened and it does not launch Casanova.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that the buddy is not a zip hold.; sent8 -> int3: the buddy is a zip.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the escapement launches burdened and does not launch Casanova is not right.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it launches burdened and does not launch Casanova is false.; int6 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the seafood does summarize.
sent6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is not a Shreveport and it does attenuate is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the seafood does summarize. ; $context$ = sent1: that the seafood does not launch Casanova is not false. sent2: the escapement does launch burdened. sent3: the buddy is peroneal. sent4: the buddy does summarize and is peroneal. sent5: the buddy is a kind of peroneal thing that does not launch Casanova. sent6: that the fact that the cornhusk is not a kind of a Shreveport and does attenuate is not false is wrong. sent7: the seafood does not summarize if there exists something such that the fact that it launches burdened and does not launch Casanova is false. sent8: the buddy is a zip and it is peroneal. sent9: there exists something such that it launches burdened. sent10: that the attachment is a Borago but it does not summarize is not correct. sent11: the fact that the buddy does not launch Casanova is not wrong. sent12: if there exists something such that it launches burdened and it does not launch Casanova the buddy is not a zip. sent13: the escapement is not a zip. sent14: there exists something such that that it launches burdened and launches Casanova is not true. sent15: the fact that the pilot pigments and is not aldermanic does not hold. sent16: the hippopotamus does launch burdened. sent17: the buddy is a kind of a Scotch that does not strangulate Lubumbashi. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the escapement launches burdened but it does not launch Casanova.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it launches burdened and it does not launch Casanova.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that the buddy is not a zip hold.; sent8 -> int3: the buddy is a zip.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the escapement launches burdened and does not launch Casanova is not right.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it launches burdened and does not launch Casanova is false.; int6 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__