the luncher does anastomose.
sent1: that the antibaryon is a Wiccan but it is not a kind of a larvacide is wrong. sent2: the fact that the luncher does not anastomose is not wrong if it ascertains ransom. sent3: the fact that the fact that the luncher ascertains ransom but it is not a larvacide is not wrong does not hold. sent4: if the dampener is a kind of a Rawalpindi it either is not a kind of a bacca or is heedful or both. sent5: if the fact that something is not independent and it is not a kind of a mariposa is incorrect then it does anastomose. sent6: something is dependent if it ascertains ransom and it is not a kind of a mariposa. sent7: if the weekender does ascertain ransom then that the luncher does not ascertain ransom and it is not a larvacide does not hold. sent8: the fact that the symphonist is a kind of a Hyla that does not anastomose is not correct. sent9: if something does not follow then the fact that the pope is deflationary and is a larvacide is right. sent10: the popularizer is a kind of a talentlessness or ascertains hallucination or both if there exists something such that it is not a bacca. sent11: the weekender is independent and it is a mariposa. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not independent hold the fact that the pope does anastomose is not false. sent13: the fact that the luncher is not a larvacide and it is not a mariposa is not right if the weekender is a larvacide. sent14: the luncher does not anastomose if the fact that it does not ascertain ransom and it is not a larvacide is incorrect. sent15: the weekender does ascertain ransom if it is independent. sent16: something is a larvacide if that it is not a kind of a larvacide and it does follow does not hold. sent17: if that the popularizer is a talentlessness is true then the weekender is a talentlessness. sent18: the weekender is a mariposa. sent19: if the weekender does ascertain ransom then the fact that the luncher ascertain ransom but it is not a larvacide is not correct. sent20: something is not a bacca if it is not a bacca and/or it is heedful. sent21: the luncher does ascertain ransom if the weekender is a larvacide. sent22: the fact that something is not independent and is not a mariposa does not hold if it does ascertain ransom. sent23: that something is not a larvacide and does follow does not hold if that it is a talentlessness is correct. sent24: the fact that the dampener is a kind of a Rawalpindi hold.
sent11 -> int1: the weekender is independent.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the weekender does ascertain ransom.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the luncher does not ascertain ransom and is not a larvacide is wrong.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the pope is deflationary thing that does anastomose.
sent6 -> int4: if the weekender ascertains ransom and is not a mariposa it is not independent.;
$hypothesis$ = the luncher does anastomose. ; $context$ = sent1: that the antibaryon is a Wiccan but it is not a kind of a larvacide is wrong. sent2: the fact that the luncher does not anastomose is not wrong if it ascertains ransom. sent3: the fact that the fact that the luncher ascertains ransom but it is not a larvacide is not wrong does not hold. sent4: if the dampener is a kind of a Rawalpindi it either is not a kind of a bacca or is heedful or both. sent5: if the fact that something is not independent and it is not a kind of a mariposa is incorrect then it does anastomose. sent6: something is dependent if it ascertains ransom and it is not a kind of a mariposa. sent7: if the weekender does ascertain ransom then that the luncher does not ascertain ransom and it is not a larvacide does not hold. sent8: the fact that the symphonist is a kind of a Hyla that does not anastomose is not correct. sent9: if something does not follow then the fact that the pope is deflationary and is a larvacide is right. sent10: the popularizer is a kind of a talentlessness or ascertains hallucination or both if there exists something such that it is not a bacca. sent11: the weekender is independent and it is a mariposa. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not independent hold the fact that the pope does anastomose is not false. sent13: the fact that the luncher is not a larvacide and it is not a mariposa is not right if the weekender is a larvacide. sent14: the luncher does not anastomose if the fact that it does not ascertain ransom and it is not a larvacide is incorrect. sent15: the weekender does ascertain ransom if it is independent. sent16: something is a larvacide if that it is not a kind of a larvacide and it does follow does not hold. sent17: if that the popularizer is a talentlessness is true then the weekender is a talentlessness. sent18: the weekender is a mariposa. sent19: if the weekender does ascertain ransom then the fact that the luncher ascertain ransom but it is not a larvacide is not correct. sent20: something is not a bacca if it is not a bacca and/or it is heedful. sent21: the luncher does ascertain ransom if the weekender is a larvacide. sent22: the fact that something is not independent and is not a mariposa does not hold if it does ascertain ransom. sent23: that something is not a larvacide and does follow does not hold if that it is a talentlessness is correct. sent24: the fact that the dampener is a kind of a Rawalpindi hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: the weekender is independent.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the weekender does ascertain ransom.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the luncher does not ascertain ransom and is not a larvacide is wrong.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__