the fact that the absorber is not lucky is not correct.
sent1: something that is either not a sprechgesang or a chemistry or both is a kind of a chemistry. sent2: if the fact that the absorber is lucky is not wrong then it is tolerant. sent3: the fact that something dictates Saxe and is not a minuscule does not hold if it is destructible. sent4: a chemistry is tolerant but not filarial. sent5: the eyepatch is a liniment if there is something such that that it does dictate Saxe and is not a kind of a minuscule is not right. sent6: everything is destructible. sent7: the entrepot does not seep Couperin and is a sugi. sent8: if the biltong is tolerant and is not filarial the antiemetic is not lucky. sent9: the absorber is filarial. sent10: the absorber is non-tolerant thing that is not non-filarial. sent11: the absorber tapers. sent12: something that is not a chemistry is filarial and/or is not tolerant. sent13: the cocktail is not tolerant. sent14: if the eyepatch is a kind of a liniment then the biltong is not a sprechgesang and/or it is a chemistry.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the absorber is lucky.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the absorber is not intolerant.; sent10 -> int2: the absorber is intolerant.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the absorber is not armless but it is not bottomed.
sent3 -> int4: if the hydrogel is destructible then the fact that it dictates Saxe and is not minuscule does not hold.; sent6 -> int5: the hydrogel is destructible.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the hydrogel does dictate Saxe and is not minuscule is false.; int6 -> int7: there is nothing such that it does dictate Saxe and is not a minuscule.; int7 -> int8: that the infernal dictates Saxe but it is not a minuscule is not true.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that the fact that that it dictates Saxe and it is not minuscule is true does not hold.; int9 & sent5 -> int10: the eyepatch is a liniment.; sent14 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the biltong either is not a sprechgesang or is a kind of a chemistry or both is not wrong.; sent1 -> int12: the biltong is a chemistry if it is not a sprechgesang or it is a chemistry or both.; int11 & int12 -> int13: the biltong is a chemistry.; sent4 -> int14: that the biltong is tolerant but it is not filarial is not wrong if the fact that it is a chemistry is correct.; int13 & int14 -> int15: the biltong is tolerant but not filarial.; int15 & sent8 -> int16: the antiemetic is not lucky.; int16 -> int17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not lucky is not false.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the absorber is not lucky is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is either not a sprechgesang or a chemistry or both is a kind of a chemistry. sent2: if the fact that the absorber is lucky is not wrong then it is tolerant. sent3: the fact that something dictates Saxe and is not a minuscule does not hold if it is destructible. sent4: a chemistry is tolerant but not filarial. sent5: the eyepatch is a liniment if there is something such that that it does dictate Saxe and is not a kind of a minuscule is not right. sent6: everything is destructible. sent7: the entrepot does not seep Couperin and is a sugi. sent8: if the biltong is tolerant and is not filarial the antiemetic is not lucky. sent9: the absorber is filarial. sent10: the absorber is non-tolerant thing that is not non-filarial. sent11: the absorber tapers. sent12: something that is not a chemistry is filarial and/or is not tolerant. sent13: the cocktail is not tolerant. sent14: if the eyepatch is a kind of a liniment then the biltong is not a sprechgesang and/or it is a chemistry. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the absorber is lucky.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the absorber is not intolerant.; sent10 -> int2: the absorber is intolerant.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__