the fact that the athlete is not a kind of a fawn and does yield snowblindness is incorrect.
sent1: the classic is a columbite-tantalite if the abbess is unmanageable. sent2: if something does not jell that it is not a kind of a fawn and it yields snowblindness is false. sent3: that the abbess does not flog is correct. sent4: if there is something such that it shrivels then the stockade shrivels or it does not ejaculate or both. sent5: something is unmanageable if that it does not addict and it is not a swordsmanship is not correct. sent6: something does not yield snowblindness if it is barographic and is windward. sent7: the fact that if the coauthor does not yield snowblindness the athlete does yield snowblindness is not false. sent8: if something is not a moke it shrivels and is not non-concentric. sent9: the coauthor is a windward. sent10: the baby is not a kind of a moke if there exists something such that that it is a columbite-tantalite hold. sent11: the coauthor is barographic. sent12: the athlete yields snowblindness. sent13: the athlete is not a fawn but it yields snowblindness if the coauthor does not yields snowblindness. sent14: if the stockade does shrivel then the athlete does not jell. sent15: that the abbess does not addict and it is not a swordsmanship does not hold if the fact that it does not flog is correct. sent16: if something that yields snowblindness does descry flare then it is not pathological.
sent6 -> int1: the coauthor does not yield snowblindness if it is barographic and it is a kind of a windward.; sent11 & sent9 -> int2: the coauthor is barographic and is a kind of a windward.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the coauthor does not yield snowblindness.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
if the photoelectricity does yield snowblindness and it descries flare then it is not pathological.
sent16 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the athlete is not a kind of a fawn and does yield snowblindness is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the classic is a columbite-tantalite if the abbess is unmanageable. sent2: if something does not jell that it is not a kind of a fawn and it yields snowblindness is false. sent3: that the abbess does not flog is correct. sent4: if there is something such that it shrivels then the stockade shrivels or it does not ejaculate or both. sent5: something is unmanageable if that it does not addict and it is not a swordsmanship is not correct. sent6: something does not yield snowblindness if it is barographic and is windward. sent7: the fact that if the coauthor does not yield snowblindness the athlete does yield snowblindness is not false. sent8: if something is not a moke it shrivels and is not non-concentric. sent9: the coauthor is a windward. sent10: the baby is not a kind of a moke if there exists something such that that it is a columbite-tantalite hold. sent11: the coauthor is barographic. sent12: the athlete yields snowblindness. sent13: the athlete is not a fawn but it yields snowblindness if the coauthor does not yields snowblindness. sent14: if the stockade does shrivel then the athlete does not jell. sent15: that the abbess does not addict and it is not a swordsmanship does not hold if the fact that it does not flog is correct. sent16: if something that yields snowblindness does descry flare then it is not pathological. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the coauthor does not yield snowblindness if it is barographic and it is a kind of a windward.; sent11 & sent9 -> int2: the coauthor is barographic and is a kind of a windward.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the coauthor does not yield snowblindness.; int3 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__