that there is something such that the fact that it does reciprocate retentiveness and it does drowse obscurantist does not hold does not hold.
sent1: that something does not spoof gentile and it is not a take is incorrect if it does not exclaim. sent2: if a non-reverent thing is apocryphal it is not a kind of a deathwatch. sent3: if the supergrass is not a take the fact that the umber does not exclaim and it is not a kind of a take is not true. sent4: the stub does spoof gentile if that the supergrass does not spoof gentile and it does not take is not true. sent5: if the supergrass does spoof Luddite and it behaves then it does not take. sent6: there is something such that it does spoof gentile. sent7: the supergrass does not take if the fact that the umber does not exclaim and it does not spoof Luddite is wrong. sent8: if that the umber does not exclaim and it does not take is wrong the obscurantist does not spoof gentile. sent9: if the supergrass does not spoof Luddite and behaves then it does not take. sent10: the fact that the umber exclaims but it is not a take does not hold if the supergrass does not take. sent11: the supergrass does not spoof Luddite and behaves. sent12: that the chitin is a kind of a mantel and it dandles elder does not hold. sent13: the catchall does not drowse stalemate and is a kind of a percolation. sent14: there is something such that it takes. sent15: if there is something such that it does not spoof gentile that the catchall does reciprocate retentiveness and does drowse obscurantist is wrong. sent16: if something does spoof gentile that it does not store and does not drowse hypernymy is incorrect. sent17: the catchall does not spoof Luddite. sent18: the fact that the umber exclaims and is not a kind of a take is not true. sent19: if the catchall is not a take then the fact that the fact that the umber does not reciprocate retentiveness and is not a take does not hold hold. sent20: if the umber does exclaim then the obscurantist does not spoof gentile. sent21: if something does not exclaim and/or does drowse obscurantist then it does not exclaim.
sent9 & sent11 -> int1: the supergrass does not take.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the umber does not exclaim and is not a take is wrong.; sent8 & int2 -> int3: the obscurantist does not spoof gentile.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it does not spoof gentile.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: that the catchall reciprocates retentiveness and drowses obscurantist is wrong.; int5 -> hypothesis;
that the stub is not a store and does not drowse hypernymy does not hold.
sent16 -> int6: if the stub does spoof gentile the fact that it is not a store and it does not drowse hypernymy is incorrect.; sent1 -> int7: if the supergrass does not exclaim then that it does not spoof gentile and is not a take is incorrect.; sent21 -> int8: the supergrass does not exclaim if either it does not exclaim or it does drowse obscurantist or both.;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that the fact that it does reciprocate retentiveness and it does drowse obscurantist does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does not spoof gentile and it is not a take is incorrect if it does not exclaim. sent2: if a non-reverent thing is apocryphal it is not a kind of a deathwatch. sent3: if the supergrass is not a take the fact that the umber does not exclaim and it is not a kind of a take is not true. sent4: the stub does spoof gentile if that the supergrass does not spoof gentile and it does not take is not true. sent5: if the supergrass does spoof Luddite and it behaves then it does not take. sent6: there is something such that it does spoof gentile. sent7: the supergrass does not take if the fact that the umber does not exclaim and it does not spoof Luddite is wrong. sent8: if that the umber does not exclaim and it does not take is wrong the obscurantist does not spoof gentile. sent9: if the supergrass does not spoof Luddite and behaves then it does not take. sent10: the fact that the umber exclaims but it is not a take does not hold if the supergrass does not take. sent11: the supergrass does not spoof Luddite and behaves. sent12: that the chitin is a kind of a mantel and it dandles elder does not hold. sent13: the catchall does not drowse stalemate and is a kind of a percolation. sent14: there is something such that it takes. sent15: if there is something such that it does not spoof gentile that the catchall does reciprocate retentiveness and does drowse obscurantist is wrong. sent16: if something does spoof gentile that it does not store and does not drowse hypernymy is incorrect. sent17: the catchall does not spoof Luddite. sent18: the fact that the umber exclaims and is not a kind of a take is not true. sent19: if the catchall is not a take then the fact that the fact that the umber does not reciprocate retentiveness and is not a take does not hold hold. sent20: if the umber does exclaim then the obscurantist does not spoof gentile. sent21: if something does not exclaim and/or does drowse obscurantist then it does not exclaim. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent11 -> int1: the supergrass does not take.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the umber does not exclaim and is not a take is wrong.; sent8 & int2 -> int3: the obscurantist does not spoof gentile.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it does not spoof gentile.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: that the catchall reciprocates retentiveness and drowses obscurantist is wrong.; int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__