the effluvium is not a teak and/or it is rheologic.
sent1: the dogmatist is synesthetic. sent2: something that is not a word-painter does launch busybody and is rheologic. sent3: that if something does not launch roof and is not chlorophyllose the Sarawakian is synesthetic is correct. sent4: that the Sarawakian is Bermudan and a Elaeocarpus is incorrect. sent5: if the dogmatist does not substantiate then the fact that that the effluvium is not a teak and/or it is rheologic is not right is not wrong. sent6: if the Sarawakian does launch busybody that it is a Bermudan and it is a Elaeocarpus is not right. sent7: the Sarawakian launches busybody. sent8: that the fact that the Sarawakian is a kind of non-Bermudan a Elaeocarpus is correct does not hold if that it does not launch busybody does not hold. sent9: there is something such that it does not launch roof and it is not chlorophyllose. sent10: the dogmatist is not synesthetic if it is a word-painter that substantiates. sent11: the effluvium is a kind of a teak. sent12: The busybody launches Sarawakian. sent13: the effluvium is a kind of a teak if that the dogmatist does not substantiate is not false. sent14: the dogmatist is a word-painter if the fact that that the Sarawakian is not Bermudan but a Elaeocarpus does not hold is not incorrect.
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: that the Sarawakian is not a Bermudan but it is a Elaeocarpus is not correct.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the dogmatist is a kind of a word-painter.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dogmatist does substantiate.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the fact that the dogmatist is a word-painter and substantiates is true.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the dogmatist is not synesthetic.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the dogmatist does not substantiate.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the effluvium either is not a teak or is rheologic or both.
sent2 -> int7: the effluvium launches busybody and is rheologic if it is not a word-painter.; sent9 & sent3 -> int8: the Sarawakian is synesthetic.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is synesthetic.;
$hypothesis$ = the effluvium is not a teak and/or it is rheologic. ; $context$ = sent1: the dogmatist is synesthetic. sent2: something that is not a word-painter does launch busybody and is rheologic. sent3: that if something does not launch roof and is not chlorophyllose the Sarawakian is synesthetic is correct. sent4: that the Sarawakian is Bermudan and a Elaeocarpus is incorrect. sent5: if the dogmatist does not substantiate then the fact that that the effluvium is not a teak and/or it is rheologic is not right is not wrong. sent6: if the Sarawakian does launch busybody that it is a Bermudan and it is a Elaeocarpus is not right. sent7: the Sarawakian launches busybody. sent8: that the fact that the Sarawakian is a kind of non-Bermudan a Elaeocarpus is correct does not hold if that it does not launch busybody does not hold. sent9: there is something such that it does not launch roof and it is not chlorophyllose. sent10: the dogmatist is not synesthetic if it is a word-painter that substantiates. sent11: the effluvium is a kind of a teak. sent12: The busybody launches Sarawakian. sent13: the effluvium is a kind of a teak if that the dogmatist does not substantiate is not false. sent14: the dogmatist is a word-painter if the fact that that the Sarawakian is not Bermudan but a Elaeocarpus does not hold is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: that the Sarawakian is not a Bermudan but it is a Elaeocarpus is not correct.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the dogmatist is a kind of a word-painter.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dogmatist does substantiate.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the fact that the dogmatist is a word-painter and substantiates is true.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the dogmatist is not synesthetic.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the dogmatist does not substantiate.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__