the acetum is a Serbian.
sent1: the psalterium does not justify hearthrug or it does not relace blacktop or both if the suicide is immunodeficient. sent2: if the fact that the psalterium does not relace blacktop is right the folio does not cut. sent3: something is lingual and it does relace woodwork if it is not cut. sent4: the folio is uncut if the psalterium does not justify hearthrug. sent5: if something does not cut then it is lingual. sent6: if something is immunodeficient it is Serbian. sent7: that if the psalterium does not relace blacktop the folio cuts is not wrong. sent8: there exists something such that it is lingual. sent9: if that something is a kind of a sectionalism and it is immunodeficient is wrong it is not a kind of a sectionalism. sent10: there is something such that it does relace woodwork. sent11: if the folio is not a kind of a cut the fact that it is a kind of a lingual is correct. sent12: the suicide is immunodeficient. sent13: the folio is lingual. sent14: if a lingual does relace woodwork then the acetum is not a kind of a Serbian.
sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the psalterium does not justify hearthrug or it does not relace blacktop or both.; int1 & sent4 & sent2 -> int2: the folio is not a kind of a cut.; sent3 -> int3: the folio is a lingual and it relaces woodwork if it is not a kind of a cut.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the folio is not non-lingual and does relace woodwork.; int4 -> int5: something is lingual thing that does relace woodwork.; int5 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the acetum is Serbian.
sent6 -> int6: that the acetum is Serbian is not false if it is immunodeficient.;
$hypothesis$ = the acetum is a Serbian. ; $context$ = sent1: the psalterium does not justify hearthrug or it does not relace blacktop or both if the suicide is immunodeficient. sent2: if the fact that the psalterium does not relace blacktop is right the folio does not cut. sent3: something is lingual and it does relace woodwork if it is not cut. sent4: the folio is uncut if the psalterium does not justify hearthrug. sent5: if something does not cut then it is lingual. sent6: if something is immunodeficient it is Serbian. sent7: that if the psalterium does not relace blacktop the folio cuts is not wrong. sent8: there exists something such that it is lingual. sent9: if that something is a kind of a sectionalism and it is immunodeficient is wrong it is not a kind of a sectionalism. sent10: there is something such that it does relace woodwork. sent11: if the folio is not a kind of a cut the fact that it is a kind of a lingual is correct. sent12: the suicide is immunodeficient. sent13: the folio is lingual. sent14: if a lingual does relace woodwork then the acetum is not a kind of a Serbian. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the psalterium does not justify hearthrug or it does not relace blacktop or both.; int1 & sent4 & sent2 -> int2: the folio is not a kind of a cut.; sent3 -> int3: the folio is a lingual and it relaces woodwork if it is not a kind of a cut.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the folio is not non-lingual and does relace woodwork.; int4 -> int5: something is lingual thing that does relace woodwork.; int5 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__