the premolar is not a kind of a IPV.
sent1: the pepperwort is not millennial and/or it is not non-cesarean. sent2: the pepperwort is a IPV. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it does confuse and does not gee is wrong then the cutout is prosthodontic. sent4: that the flavin fits Meliphagidae and is not a leech is correct. sent5: if something is not adequate the fact that it is a kind of a centaur and is not a coalman is wrong. sent6: something is a IPV if the fact that it is a centaur hold. sent7: there is something such that either it is millennial or it is cesarean or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a moke and/or it is a graniteware. sent9: the oleoresin is not a leech if the flavin fits Meliphagidae but it is not a leech. sent10: something is not a tickler if that it is a centaur and it is not a coalman is not true. sent11: that something is amphitropous and it is a concern does not hold if it is not a perigon. sent12: if something is a kind of a headpin it fits Meliphagidae. sent13: if the oleoresin is not a leech then the fact that it confuses and it does not gee is not correct. sent14: if something is a kind of a GNP then it does fit premolar. sent15: the binding is a kind of a almandine. sent16: something is not a IPV if it is not a kind of a tickler. sent17: the premolar is a centaur if that the binding is a kind of a tickler hold. sent18: the binding is a kind of a tickler if something is not millennial and/or it is cesarean. sent19: if there are non-millennial things then the binding is a tickler. sent20: if something is prosthodontic then that it does not thrill casino and is a hydrogenation is false. sent21: the pepperwort is millennial and/or it is cesarean. sent22: the premolar is not adequate if the fact that the binding is not non-amphitropous and it concerns is false. sent23: the pepperwort is a tickler.
sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not millennial and/or it is cesarean.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the binding is a tickler.; int2 & sent17 -> int3: the premolar is a centaur.; sent6 -> int4: the premolar is a IPV if it is a centaur.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the premolar is not a IPV.
sent16 -> int5: the premolar is not a IPV if it is not a tickler.; sent10 -> int6: if that the premolar is a centaur but it is not a coalman does not hold then it is not a tickler.; sent5 -> int7: the fact that the premolar is a kind of a centaur that is not a coalman is not right if that it is not adequate is not false.; sent11 -> int8: the fact that the binding is amphitropous and it is a concern is not true if it is not a kind of a perigon.; sent20 -> int9: that the cutout does not thrill casino but it is a hydrogenation is not true if the fact that it is prosthodontic is not incorrect.; sent9 & sent4 -> int10: the oleoresin is not a leech.; sent13 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the oleoresin does confuse and does not gee is wrong.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that the fact that it does confuse and it does not gee does not hold.; int12 & sent3 -> int13: the cutout is prosthodontic.; int9 & int13 -> int14: that the cutout does not thrill casino but it is a kind of a hydrogenation is not true.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that the fact that it does not thrill casino and it is a hydrogenation is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the premolar is not a kind of a IPV. ; $context$ = sent1: the pepperwort is not millennial and/or it is not non-cesarean. sent2: the pepperwort is a IPV. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it does confuse and does not gee is wrong then the cutout is prosthodontic. sent4: that the flavin fits Meliphagidae and is not a leech is correct. sent5: if something is not adequate the fact that it is a kind of a centaur and is not a coalman is wrong. sent6: something is a IPV if the fact that it is a centaur hold. sent7: there is something such that either it is millennial or it is cesarean or both. sent8: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a moke and/or it is a graniteware. sent9: the oleoresin is not a leech if the flavin fits Meliphagidae but it is not a leech. sent10: something is not a tickler if that it is a centaur and it is not a coalman is not true. sent11: that something is amphitropous and it is a concern does not hold if it is not a perigon. sent12: if something is a kind of a headpin it fits Meliphagidae. sent13: if the oleoresin is not a leech then the fact that it confuses and it does not gee is not correct. sent14: if something is a kind of a GNP then it does fit premolar. sent15: the binding is a kind of a almandine. sent16: something is not a IPV if it is not a kind of a tickler. sent17: the premolar is a centaur if that the binding is a kind of a tickler hold. sent18: the binding is a kind of a tickler if something is not millennial and/or it is cesarean. sent19: if there are non-millennial things then the binding is a tickler. sent20: if something is prosthodontic then that it does not thrill casino and is a hydrogenation is false. sent21: the pepperwort is millennial and/or it is cesarean. sent22: the premolar is not adequate if the fact that the binding is not non-amphitropous and it concerns is false. sent23: the pepperwort is a tickler. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not millennial and/or it is cesarean.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the binding is a tickler.; int2 & sent17 -> int3: the premolar is a centaur.; sent6 -> int4: the premolar is a IPV if it is a centaur.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__