the vaporization is a noncandidate.
sent1: the vaporization is not prandial. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is unlivable hold. sent3: the vaporization is shutting. sent4: if something does not seep hanger it is both a lyric and a daredevil. sent5: if the fact that something does not surmount but it is a kind of a noncandidate does not hold then it is non-prandial. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a towpath. sent7: the Yquem is unlivable if something that is a noncandidate surmounts. sent8: there exists something such that it does surmount. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a noncandidate. sent10: the vaporization surmounts. sent11: the fact that the dissolving does not surmount but it is a kind of a noncandidate is false if there exists something such that the fact that it is unlivable is not wrong. sent12: if something is shutting it is unlivable. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a towpath then the vaporization does not seep hanger. sent14: the tap is shutting. sent15: the tap is not shutting if something is unlivable and is prandial. sent16: if something is a kind of a daredevil then it is shutting. sent17: there exists something such that it is not non-prandial. sent18: that the Yquem is prandial hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the vaporization is a noncandidate is not wrong.; assump1 & sent10 -> int1: the vaporization is a kind of a noncandidate and it does surmount.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is a kind of a noncandidate and it does surmount.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the Yquem is unlivable.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the Yquem is unlivable and it is prandial.; int4 -> int5: something is unlivable and it is prandial.; int5 & sent15 -> int6: the tap is not shutting.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the dissolving is not prandial.
sent5 -> int8: if the fact that that the dissolving does not surmount but it is a noncandidate hold is false it is not prandial.; sent12 -> int9: the vaporization is unlivable if it is shutting.; sent16 -> int10: if the vaporization is a kind of a daredevil it is shutting.; sent4 -> int11: that the vaporization lyrics and it is the daredevil if the vaporization does not seep hanger is correct.; sent6 & sent13 -> int12: the vaporization does not seep hanger.; int11 & int12 -> int13: the vaporization is both a lyric and a daredevil.; int13 -> int14: the vaporization is a daredevil.; int10 & int14 -> int15: the fact that the vaporization is shutting hold.; int9 & int15 -> int16: the vaporization is unlivable.; int16 -> int17: the fact that there is something such that it is unlivable is right.; int17 & sent11 -> int18: the fact that the dissolving does not surmount and is a noncandidate does not hold.; int8 & int18 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the vaporization is a noncandidate. ; $context$ = sent1: the vaporization is not prandial. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it is unlivable hold. sent3: the vaporization is shutting. sent4: if something does not seep hanger it is both a lyric and a daredevil. sent5: if the fact that something does not surmount but it is a kind of a noncandidate does not hold then it is non-prandial. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a towpath. sent7: the Yquem is unlivable if something that is a noncandidate surmounts. sent8: there exists something such that it does surmount. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a noncandidate. sent10: the vaporization surmounts. sent11: the fact that the dissolving does not surmount but it is a kind of a noncandidate is false if there exists something such that the fact that it is unlivable is not wrong. sent12: if something is shutting it is unlivable. sent13: if there is something such that it is not a towpath then the vaporization does not seep hanger. sent14: the tap is shutting. sent15: the tap is not shutting if something is unlivable and is prandial. sent16: if something is a kind of a daredevil then it is shutting. sent17: there exists something such that it is not non-prandial. sent18: that the Yquem is prandial hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the vaporization is a noncandidate is not wrong.; assump1 & sent10 -> int1: the vaporization is a kind of a noncandidate and it does surmount.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is a kind of a noncandidate and it does surmount.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the Yquem is unlivable.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the Yquem is unlivable and it is prandial.; int4 -> int5: something is unlivable and it is prandial.; int5 & sent15 -> int6: the tap is not shutting.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__