the sulfide is Stoic.
sent1: the handicraft dogmatizes ordinariness if the waterspout is jointed. sent2: the sulfide is a kind of a jointed if it is not a Stoic. sent3: if the waterspout is a kind of a jointed then the bouquet does jointed. sent4: there exists something such that it is immaterial. sent5: if there is something such that it is a flatiron and is a Breton then the sulfide does not dogmatize Formicarius. sent6: the chenille is a flatiron. sent7: the bouquet is not immaterial if the hut does not dogmatize Formicarius or it is a flatiron or both. sent8: something that is not a Breton is a flatiron that dogmatizes Formicarius. sent9: the handicraft dogmatizes ordinariness if the waterspout is a megahertz. sent10: if the handicraft is not immaterial then the sulfide is not a kind of a Stoic. sent11: there is something such that it is a flatiron and is a Breton. sent12: there exists something such that it does dogmatize ordinariness. sent13: if the bouquet is not immaterial that the handicraft is a kind of a megahertz that dogmatizes ordinariness is not right. sent14: if the phlogiston is a kind of a cetrimide that it is not a Breton and it is not electrostatics is not correct. sent15: if that the bouquet is a cetrimide but not non-electrostatics does not hold then the chenille is not a kind of a Breton. sent16: the chenille does not dogmatize ordinariness if there is something such that that it is a kind of a megahertz that dogmatize ordinariness is not correct. sent17: if something is a jointed and a Breton the waterspout does not dogmatize ordinariness. sent18: if something is not a Breton it is a flatiron. sent19: if the fact that the waterspout does dogmatize ordinariness but it is not a jointed does not hold then the sulfide jointed. sent20: the chenille does not dogmatize Formicarius if something dogmatizes ordinariness and is immaterial. sent21: the waterspout is jointed or it is a megahertz or both. sent22: that something does not dogmatize Formicarius or is a kind of a flatiron or both is not wrong if it is a kind of a Breton. sent23: the chenille is not a Breton if the bouquet is not a cetrimide. sent24: there is nothing that is a cetrimide and is electrostatics. sent25: if the fact that the phlogiston is not a Breton and it is not electrostatics is false the hut is a Breton. sent26: the phlogiston is a cetrimide. sent27: the fact that the waterspout is a megahertz that does not dogmatize ordinariness is wrong if the chenille is immaterial. sent28: the chenille is not a purpose.
sent21 & sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the handicraft does dogmatize ordinariness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the handicraft is immaterial.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the handicraft does dogmatize ordinariness and is immaterial.; int2 -> int3: something does dogmatize ordinariness and it is immaterial.; int3 & sent20 -> int4: the chenille does not dogmatize Formicarius.; sent8 -> int5: the chenille is a flatiron and it does dogmatize Formicarius if it is not a Breton.; sent24 -> int6: that the bouquet is a cetrimide and electrostatics does not hold.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the chenille is not a Breton.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the chenille is a flatiron and dogmatizes Formicarius.; int8 -> int9: the chenille dogmatizes Formicarius.; int4 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the fact that the handicraft is not immaterial is correct.; int11 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the bouquet is a jointed.
sent11 & sent5 -> int12: the sulfide does not dogmatize Formicarius.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that that it does not dogmatize Formicarius is true.;
$hypothesis$ = the sulfide is Stoic. ; $context$ = sent1: the handicraft dogmatizes ordinariness if the waterspout is jointed. sent2: the sulfide is a kind of a jointed if it is not a Stoic. sent3: if the waterspout is a kind of a jointed then the bouquet does jointed. sent4: there exists something such that it is immaterial. sent5: if there is something such that it is a flatiron and is a Breton then the sulfide does not dogmatize Formicarius. sent6: the chenille is a flatiron. sent7: the bouquet is not immaterial if the hut does not dogmatize Formicarius or it is a flatiron or both. sent8: something that is not a Breton is a flatiron that dogmatizes Formicarius. sent9: the handicraft dogmatizes ordinariness if the waterspout is a megahertz. sent10: if the handicraft is not immaterial then the sulfide is not a kind of a Stoic. sent11: there is something such that it is a flatiron and is a Breton. sent12: there exists something such that it does dogmatize ordinariness. sent13: if the bouquet is not immaterial that the handicraft is a kind of a megahertz that dogmatizes ordinariness is not right. sent14: if the phlogiston is a kind of a cetrimide that it is not a Breton and it is not electrostatics is not correct. sent15: if that the bouquet is a cetrimide but not non-electrostatics does not hold then the chenille is not a kind of a Breton. sent16: the chenille does not dogmatize ordinariness if there is something such that that it is a kind of a megahertz that dogmatize ordinariness is not correct. sent17: if something is a jointed and a Breton the waterspout does not dogmatize ordinariness. sent18: if something is not a Breton it is a flatiron. sent19: if the fact that the waterspout does dogmatize ordinariness but it is not a jointed does not hold then the sulfide jointed. sent20: the chenille does not dogmatize Formicarius if something dogmatizes ordinariness and is immaterial. sent21: the waterspout is jointed or it is a megahertz or both. sent22: that something does not dogmatize Formicarius or is a kind of a flatiron or both is not wrong if it is a kind of a Breton. sent23: the chenille is not a Breton if the bouquet is not a cetrimide. sent24: there is nothing that is a cetrimide and is electrostatics. sent25: if the fact that the phlogiston is not a Breton and it is not electrostatics is false the hut is a Breton. sent26: the phlogiston is a cetrimide. sent27: the fact that the waterspout is a megahertz that does not dogmatize ordinariness is wrong if the chenille is immaterial. sent28: the chenille is not a purpose. ; $proof$ = 
sent21 & sent1 & sent9 -> int1: the handicraft does dogmatize ordinariness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the handicraft is immaterial.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the handicraft does dogmatize ordinariness and is immaterial.; int2 -> int3: something does dogmatize ordinariness and it is immaterial.; int3 & sent20 -> int4: the chenille does not dogmatize Formicarius.; sent8 -> int5: the chenille is a flatiron and it does dogmatize Formicarius if it is not a Breton.; sent24 -> int6: that the bouquet is a cetrimide and electrostatics does not hold.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the chenille is not a Breton.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the chenille is a flatiron and dogmatizes Formicarius.; int8 -> int9: the chenille dogmatizes Formicarius.; int4 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the fact that the handicraft is not immaterial is correct.; int11 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__