the carpospore is not angiospermous and does not amaze.
sent1: something is inductive or it is a Pusan or both if it is not episcopal. sent2: if something is not a tickling then it is non-angiospermous thing that does not amaze. sent3: the nibbler does suggest subscript if it is not a kind of a cycling and impedes radioscopy. sent4: the nibbler is not a cycling and does impede radioscopy. sent5: the fact that the nibbler amazes and is not angiospermous is false if the carpospore does not impede radioscopy. sent6: if the nibbler is not a tickling then that the carpospore is angiospermous and does not amaze is not right. sent7: the carpospore does not parse. sent8: that the carpospore is angiospermous and does not amaze is not correct. sent9: the fact that the nibbler suggests subscript and is not a kind of a Incarnation is not correct if it is inductive. sent10: if the nibbler is not a tickling that the carpospore is not angiospermous but it does amaze is incorrect. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a bun but not a limiting does not hold then the croupier is not episcopal. sent12: that the carpospore is not angiospermous but it amazes does not hold. sent13: the nibbler does not cycle. sent14: if the nibbler does not tickle then that the carpospore is non-angiospermous thing that does not amaze is not right. sent15: that the patternmaker is not a Dagestani and is not a cycling is not true. sent16: the carpospore does not suggest subscript. sent17: that the carpospore does not impede radioscopy and is not angiospermous does not hold. sent18: if something is heartless then the fact that it is both a bun and not a limiting does not hold. sent19: if something does suggest subscript then it is not a kind of a tickling. sent20: if the nibbler is a kind of a cycling and impedes radioscopy then it suggests subscript. sent21: the nibbler is inductive if the croupier is inductive. sent22: the bestiary is heartless.
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the nibbler suggests subscript.; sent19 -> int2: if the nibbler suggests subscript it is not a tickling.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nibbler is not a tickling.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the carpospore is not angiospermous and it does not amaze.
sent2 -> int4: if the carpospore does not tickle then it is a kind of non-angiospermous thing that does not amaze.; sent1 -> int5: if the fact that the croupier is not episcopal is right it either is inductive or is a Pusan or both.; sent18 -> int6: if the bestiary is heartless then the fact that it is a bun and is not a limiting is not true.; int6 & sent22 -> int7: the fact that that the bestiary is a bun and not a limiting does not hold hold.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that that it is a bun and it is not a limiting does not hold.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: that the croupier is not episcopal is not wrong.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the croupier is inductive and/or it is a kind of a Pusan.;
$hypothesis$ = the carpospore is not angiospermous and does not amaze. ; $context$ = sent1: something is inductive or it is a Pusan or both if it is not episcopal. sent2: if something is not a tickling then it is non-angiospermous thing that does not amaze. sent3: the nibbler does suggest subscript if it is not a kind of a cycling and impedes radioscopy. sent4: the nibbler is not a cycling and does impede radioscopy. sent5: the fact that the nibbler amazes and is not angiospermous is false if the carpospore does not impede radioscopy. sent6: if the nibbler is not a tickling then that the carpospore is angiospermous and does not amaze is not right. sent7: the carpospore does not parse. sent8: that the carpospore is angiospermous and does not amaze is not correct. sent9: the fact that the nibbler suggests subscript and is not a kind of a Incarnation is not correct if it is inductive. sent10: if the nibbler is not a tickling that the carpospore is not angiospermous but it does amaze is incorrect. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a bun but not a limiting does not hold then the croupier is not episcopal. sent12: that the carpospore is not angiospermous but it amazes does not hold. sent13: the nibbler does not cycle. sent14: if the nibbler does not tickle then that the carpospore is non-angiospermous thing that does not amaze is not right. sent15: that the patternmaker is not a Dagestani and is not a cycling is not true. sent16: the carpospore does not suggest subscript. sent17: that the carpospore does not impede radioscopy and is not angiospermous does not hold. sent18: if something is heartless then the fact that it is both a bun and not a limiting does not hold. sent19: if something does suggest subscript then it is not a kind of a tickling. sent20: if the nibbler is a kind of a cycling and impedes radioscopy then it suggests subscript. sent21: the nibbler is inductive if the croupier is inductive. sent22: the bestiary is heartless. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the nibbler suggests subscript.; sent19 -> int2: if the nibbler suggests subscript it is not a tickling.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the nibbler is not a tickling.; int3 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__