the fact that there is something such that if it is not canicular then the fact that it is both not a ratline and a selfishness is not correct is not correct.
sent1: if there exists something such that it ambushes volumed then that the jerky does not ambushes volumed and it does not compromise contraband is wrong. sent2: if the bustard is Proustian and is a selfishness then it is a demarche. sent3: the fact that something is a phonograph but it is not fingerless is not correct if that it is not a kind of a ossicle is not wrong. sent4: if something is not a ratline and is a kind of a selfishness it is canicular. sent5: the soupspoon is aneurysmal if it is a kind of a ratline and it accelerates pullover. sent6: if something that is woolen is empty then it is Homeric. sent7: that the bustard is a Devon and is not non-Algerian is false if it is not canicular. sent8: there is something such that if it is canicular that it is not a ratline but a selfishness does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not ambush Mellon then the fact that it is a Klamath and compatible does not hold. sent10: the fact that the jerky does compromise contraband is correct if that that it does not ambush volumed and it does not compromise contraband is not incorrect is wrong. sent11: the registrant is not canicular. sent12: something is not a ossicle if that it is a ossicle and it is a Atrovent is false. sent13: there exists something such that it does ambush volumed.
sent4 -> int1: if the bustard is not a kind of a ratline but it is a selfishness then it is canicular.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the bustard is not a kind of a ratline but it is a selfishness is correct.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the bustard is canicular.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bustard is not canicular.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: that the bustard is not a ratline and is a selfishness is not true.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the bustard is not a ratline but a selfishness is false if it is not canicular.; int5 -> hypothesis;
the helvella is not canicular.
sent3 -> int6: the fact that the emir is a phonograph that is not fingerless is not right if it is not a ossicle.; sent12 -> int7: if the fact that the emir is a kind of a ossicle and it is a Atrovent is not correct then it is not a ossicle.; sent13 & sent1 -> int8: the fact that the jerky does not ambush volumed and does not compromise contraband does not hold.; sent10 & int8 -> int9: the jerky compromises contraband.; int9 -> int10: something compromises contraband.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not canicular then the fact that it is both not a ratline and a selfishness is not correct is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it ambushes volumed then that the jerky does not ambushes volumed and it does not compromise contraband is wrong. sent2: if the bustard is Proustian and is a selfishness then it is a demarche. sent3: the fact that something is a phonograph but it is not fingerless is not correct if that it is not a kind of a ossicle is not wrong. sent4: if something is not a ratline and is a kind of a selfishness it is canicular. sent5: the soupspoon is aneurysmal if it is a kind of a ratline and it accelerates pullover. sent6: if something that is woolen is empty then it is Homeric. sent7: that the bustard is a Devon and is not non-Algerian is false if it is not canicular. sent8: there is something such that if it is canicular that it is not a ratline but a selfishness does not hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not ambush Mellon then the fact that it is a Klamath and compatible does not hold. sent10: the fact that the jerky does compromise contraband is correct if that that it does not ambush volumed and it does not compromise contraband is not incorrect is wrong. sent11: the registrant is not canicular. sent12: something is not a ossicle if that it is a ossicle and it is a Atrovent is false. sent13: there exists something such that it does ambush volumed. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: if the bustard is not a kind of a ratline but it is a selfishness then it is canicular.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the bustard is not a kind of a ratline but it is a selfishness is correct.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the bustard is canicular.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bustard is not canicular.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: that the bustard is not a ratline and is a selfishness is not true.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the bustard is not a ratline but a selfishness is false if it is not canicular.; int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__