the synovia is not resolute.
sent1: if the wood is not anagrammatic then it is prolusory or does beat Zworykin or both. sent2: if the sarin does not fudge kaffir it does fudge crith. sent3: that the synovia is resolute and is not Bismarckian does not hold. sent4: the synovia is resolute if there is something such that it fudges crith. sent5: if the fact that the wood is a kind of prolusory thing that fudges crith is not correct then the synovia is not resolute. sent6: if something does not fudge kaffir then it does fudge crith. sent7: there exists something such that it is a Yellowstone. sent8: if that something does not beat Zworykin but it is anagrammatic is not correct then it is not anagrammatic. sent9: that the trapper does not beat Zworykin but it is anagrammatic is false if the fact that it is not wintry is correct. sent10: there exists nothing that does fudge kaffir and is not Bismarckian. sent11: if the fact that something does fudge kaffir but it is not Bismarckian is not right it fudges crith. sent12: if the trapper is non-anagrammatic then the fact that the wood is prolusory thing that does fudge crith is not true. sent13: the wood is a kind of prolusory thing that is anagrammatic.
sent10 -> int1: that the sarin fudges kaffir but it is not Bismarckian is not true.; sent11 -> int2: if the fact that the sarin does fudge kaffir but it is not Bismarckian is not true it does fudge crith.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sarin fudges crith.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it fudges crith.; int4 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the synovia is not resolute.
sent8 -> int5: if the fact that the trapper does not beat Zworykin but it is anagrammatic is not right it is not anagrammatic.;
$hypothesis$ = the synovia is not resolute. ; $context$ = sent1: if the wood is not anagrammatic then it is prolusory or does beat Zworykin or both. sent2: if the sarin does not fudge kaffir it does fudge crith. sent3: that the synovia is resolute and is not Bismarckian does not hold. sent4: the synovia is resolute if there is something such that it fudges crith. sent5: if the fact that the wood is a kind of prolusory thing that fudges crith is not correct then the synovia is not resolute. sent6: if something does not fudge kaffir then it does fudge crith. sent7: there exists something such that it is a Yellowstone. sent8: if that something does not beat Zworykin but it is anagrammatic is not correct then it is not anagrammatic. sent9: that the trapper does not beat Zworykin but it is anagrammatic is false if the fact that it is not wintry is correct. sent10: there exists nothing that does fudge kaffir and is not Bismarckian. sent11: if the fact that something does fudge kaffir but it is not Bismarckian is not right it fudges crith. sent12: if the trapper is non-anagrammatic then the fact that the wood is prolusory thing that does fudge crith is not true. sent13: the wood is a kind of prolusory thing that is anagrammatic. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: that the sarin fudges kaffir but it is not Bismarckian is not true.; sent11 -> int2: if the fact that the sarin does fudge kaffir but it is not Bismarckian is not true it does fudge crith.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sarin fudges crith.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that it fudges crith.; int4 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__