that the fact that the clip-on does retaliate and/or it is incongruent does not hold if the trudger does not interpret is not true.
sent1: the clip-on is congruent. sent2: the trudger is a kind of a lot and is an oar. sent3: the fact that the fact that the clip-on does retaliate or it is not congruent or both is not true if the trudger interprets is correct. sent4: the fact that something does not stratify skyrocket but it is elocutionary is not true if it is a kind of a lot. sent5: if the clip-on is not congruent then the trudger interprets. sent6: if the trudger does retaliate or it is incongruent or both then that the clip-on interprets is correct. sent7: the clip-on is stomatous. sent8: the clip-on is congruent if the trudger does not interpret. sent9: if the clip-on either does retaliate or is not congruent or both the fact that the trudger does interpret is not incorrect. sent10: the fact that the trudger is epistemic or it is not a kind of a troll or both does not hold. sent11: the clip-on does not insert rye. sent12: the clip-on does not interpret if there is something such that that it does not stratify skyrocket and is elocutionary is false. sent13: the trudger is congruent and/or it does not interpret. sent14: if the clip-on retaliates then the use retaliates. sent15: the clip-on does retaliate and/or it is congruent. sent16: the trudger does not retaliate. sent17: the clip-on does not interpret. sent18: the trudger does not hype greeter. sent19: if the trudger does not interpret the clip-on does retaliate or is not congruent or both.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that either the clip-on retaliates or it is not congruent or both.; sent9 & assump2 -> int1: the trudger interprets.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trudger does not interpret.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that that the clip-on either retaliates or is not congruent or both is wrong hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the use does retaliate.
sent4 -> int4: if the trudger is a lot that it does not stratify skyrocket and it is elocutionary is false.; sent2 -> int5: the trudger is a kind of a lot.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the trudger does not stratify skyrocket but it is elocutionary does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it does not stratify skyrocket and it is elocutionary is incorrect.; int7 & sent12 -> int8: the clip-on does not interpret.;
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the clip-on does retaliate and/or it is incongruent does not hold if the trudger does not interpret is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the clip-on is congruent. sent2: the trudger is a kind of a lot and is an oar. sent3: the fact that the fact that the clip-on does retaliate or it is not congruent or both is not true if the trudger interprets is correct. sent4: the fact that something does not stratify skyrocket but it is elocutionary is not true if it is a kind of a lot. sent5: if the clip-on is not congruent then the trudger interprets. sent6: if the trudger does retaliate or it is incongruent or both then that the clip-on interprets is correct. sent7: the clip-on is stomatous. sent8: the clip-on is congruent if the trudger does not interpret. sent9: if the clip-on either does retaliate or is not congruent or both the fact that the trudger does interpret is not incorrect. sent10: the fact that the trudger is epistemic or it is not a kind of a troll or both does not hold. sent11: the clip-on does not insert rye. sent12: the clip-on does not interpret if there is something such that that it does not stratify skyrocket and is elocutionary is false. sent13: the trudger is congruent and/or it does not interpret. sent14: if the clip-on retaliates then the use retaliates. sent15: the clip-on does retaliate and/or it is congruent. sent16: the trudger does not retaliate. sent17: the clip-on does not interpret. sent18: the trudger does not hype greeter. sent19: if the trudger does not interpret the clip-on does retaliate or is not congruent or both. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that either the clip-on retaliates or it is not congruent or both.; sent9 & assump2 -> int1: the trudger interprets.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trudger does not interpret.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that that the clip-on either retaliates or is not congruent or both is wrong hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__