the barony is not a trismus.
sent1: if either something suborns cyanohydrin or it is a amorality or both then it is not inhospitable. sent2: if the cyanohydrin is an accusation then the barony is a kind of an accusation. sent3: that the cyanohydrin is inhospitable thing that is not a rook is not true. sent4: if the cyanohydrin is a rook then the microfilm suborns cyanohydrin. sent5: the eardrum is a olm if the alidade is migrational but it is not a olm. sent6: the fact that the alidade is both not non-migrational and not the olm if the alidade is not provident is right. sent7: the microfilm is not inhospitable if it is a amorality. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a scorpaenoid and it is a kind of an evil. sent9: the fact that the cyanohydrin is a rook and is an accusation is not false. sent10: the cyanohydrin is a kind of a trismus. sent11: something is not a porterhouse and is not a perceptiveness if it is proprioceptive. sent12: if the barony does not suborn enrichment it is a trismus. sent13: if something does not suborn enrichment then it is a trismus. sent14: the cyanohydrin is a kind of an accusation. sent15: something is a trismus if that it suborns enrichment and is not inhospitable is not right. sent16: the micropyle is proprioceptive if the eardrum is a kind of a olm. sent17: something is not inhospitable if it is a amorality. sent18: if something is not a porterhouse and not a perceptiveness it is not sociocultural. sent19: if the fact that the cyanohydrin is not an accusation is right the barony is not a trismus and it is not a rook. sent20: that the cyanohydrin is both not a rook and a amorality is wrong if the fact that the microfilm does not suborn cyanohydrin is not wrong. sent21: if the fact that the micropyle is not sociocultural hold the microfilm does suborn enrichment and it is inhospitable. sent22: if something is a kind of a rook it is an accusation. sent23: if something does suborn enrichment and is inhospitable it does not suborn cyanohydrin. sent24: if the microfilm is not an accusation but a amorality the cyanohydrin is not an accusation. sent25: if the fact that the microfilm is not inhospitable is not incorrect the fact that the barony does suborn enrichment and is not inhospitable is incorrect.
sent9 -> int1: the cyanohydrin is a kind of a rook.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the microfilm does suborn cyanohydrin.; int2 -> int3: either the microfilm does suborn cyanohydrin or it is a kind of a amorality or both.; sent1 -> int4: the microfilm is not inhospitable if it does suborn cyanohydrin and/or it is a kind of a amorality.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the microfilm is not inhospitable is not false.; int5 & sent25 -> int6: the fact that the barony does suborn enrichment but it is hospitable does not hold.; sent15 -> int7: the barony is a kind of a trismus if the fact that it suborns enrichment and is not inhospitable is wrong.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the barony is not a trismus.
$hypothesis$ = the barony is not a trismus. ; $context$ = sent1: if either something suborns cyanohydrin or it is a amorality or both then it is not inhospitable. sent2: if the cyanohydrin is an accusation then the barony is a kind of an accusation. sent3: that the cyanohydrin is inhospitable thing that is not a rook is not true. sent4: if the cyanohydrin is a rook then the microfilm suborns cyanohydrin. sent5: the eardrum is a olm if the alidade is migrational but it is not a olm. sent6: the fact that the alidade is both not non-migrational and not the olm if the alidade is not provident is right. sent7: the microfilm is not inhospitable if it is a amorality. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a scorpaenoid and it is a kind of an evil. sent9: the fact that the cyanohydrin is a rook and is an accusation is not false. sent10: the cyanohydrin is a kind of a trismus. sent11: something is not a porterhouse and is not a perceptiveness if it is proprioceptive. sent12: if the barony does not suborn enrichment it is a trismus. sent13: if something does not suborn enrichment then it is a trismus. sent14: the cyanohydrin is a kind of an accusation. sent15: something is a trismus if that it suborns enrichment and is not inhospitable is not right. sent16: the micropyle is proprioceptive if the eardrum is a kind of a olm. sent17: something is not inhospitable if it is a amorality. sent18: if something is not a porterhouse and not a perceptiveness it is not sociocultural. sent19: if the fact that the cyanohydrin is not an accusation is right the barony is not a trismus and it is not a rook. sent20: that the cyanohydrin is both not a rook and a amorality is wrong if the fact that the microfilm does not suborn cyanohydrin is not wrong. sent21: if the fact that the micropyle is not sociocultural hold the microfilm does suborn enrichment and it is inhospitable. sent22: if something is a kind of a rook it is an accusation. sent23: if something does suborn enrichment and is inhospitable it does not suborn cyanohydrin. sent24: if the microfilm is not an accusation but a amorality the cyanohydrin is not an accusation. sent25: if the fact that the microfilm is not inhospitable is not incorrect the fact that the barony does suborn enrichment and is not inhospitable is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: the cyanohydrin is a kind of a rook.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the microfilm does suborn cyanohydrin.; int2 -> int3: either the microfilm does suborn cyanohydrin or it is a kind of a amorality or both.; sent1 -> int4: the microfilm is not inhospitable if it does suborn cyanohydrin and/or it is a kind of a amorality.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the microfilm is not inhospitable is not false.; int5 & sent25 -> int6: the fact that the barony does suborn enrichment but it is hospitable does not hold.; sent15 -> int7: the barony is a kind of a trismus if the fact that it suborns enrichment and is not inhospitable is wrong.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__