that the honker is not subcortical and it is not stemless if the PVC does not carol counselor does not hold.
sent1: that the honker is not subcortical and it is not stemless is not incorrect if the PVC carols counselor. sent2: if the honker is a borsch the road is a kind of a borsch. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it does cope handshake or it is not nectariferous or both does not hold the road is not stemless. sent4: if the honker is not stemless then the fact that the road is subcortical and/or it does not cope handshake is wrong. sent5: the honker is non-subcortical thing that is not stemless if the road is not stemless. sent6: if the road is not stemless then the honker is not stemless. sent7: the honker is subcortical but it is not stemless if the PVC does not carol counselor. sent8: if the road is not stemless the honker is both not non-subcortical and stemless. sent9: that the griseofulvin carols counselor is right if there exists something such that it is a borsch and it is stemless. sent10: the fact that the PVC is a Puritanism and/or is not suctorial is not true if there is something such that it carols counselor. sent11: the honker is stemmed. sent12: if the PVC does not carol counselor that the griseofulvin copes handshake and/or it is not nectariferous is not correct. sent13: the griseofulvin is nectariferous.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the PVC does not carol counselor.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: that the griseofulvin does cope handshake and/or it is not nectariferous is not true.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it either does cope handshake or is not nectariferous or both is not right.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: that the road is not stemless hold.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the honker is non-subcortical thing that is not stemless.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that that the fact that it is a Puritanism and/or is not suctorial is not incorrect is incorrect.
$hypothesis$ = that the honker is not subcortical and it is not stemless if the PVC does not carol counselor does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the honker is not subcortical and it is not stemless is not incorrect if the PVC carols counselor. sent2: if the honker is a borsch the road is a kind of a borsch. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it does cope handshake or it is not nectariferous or both does not hold the road is not stemless. sent4: if the honker is not stemless then the fact that the road is subcortical and/or it does not cope handshake is wrong. sent5: the honker is non-subcortical thing that is not stemless if the road is not stemless. sent6: if the road is not stemless then the honker is not stemless. sent7: the honker is subcortical but it is not stemless if the PVC does not carol counselor. sent8: if the road is not stemless the honker is both not non-subcortical and stemless. sent9: that the griseofulvin carols counselor is right if there exists something such that it is a borsch and it is stemless. sent10: the fact that the PVC is a Puritanism and/or is not suctorial is not true if there is something such that it carols counselor. sent11: the honker is stemmed. sent12: if the PVC does not carol counselor that the griseofulvin copes handshake and/or it is not nectariferous is not correct. sent13: the griseofulvin is nectariferous. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the PVC does not carol counselor.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: that the griseofulvin does cope handshake and/or it is not nectariferous is not true.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it either does cope handshake or is not nectariferous or both is not right.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: that the road is not stemless hold.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the honker is non-subcortical thing that is not stemless.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__