the fact that if the prolonge is an automatic then the larvicide volleys does not hold.
sent1: if the nitrile does not activate genius the larvicide is a volley. sent2: if that the prolonge is a kind of an automatic is not incorrect that the nitrile does activate genius but it does not activate headship is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the nitrile is a volley that does activate genius is wrong if the larvicide activates headship. sent4: that the nitrile does activate headship and is not an automatic is not true. sent5: if the respecter is automatic then that it does shiver minimization and does not activate genius is not right. sent6: that the larvicide does activate headship and it is a volley is wrong if the prolonge is automatic. sent7: the fact that the nitrile does activate genius and is a Caranx does not hold. sent8: if that the nitrile activates genius but it does not activate headship does not hold the larvicide volleys. sent9: the prolonge activates headship if that the nitrile activates genius but it is not automatic is not correct. sent10: the fact that the larvicide does activate genius but it does not volley does not hold. sent11: that the nitrile activates genius but it does not volley is not right. sent12: the shaft activates headship. sent13: that that something is unpronounceable but it does not activate genius is not incorrect is wrong if it is an automatic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the prolonge is a kind of an automatic.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the nitrile does activate genius and does not activate headship is not correct.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the larvicide does volley.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the respecter shivers minimization and does not activate genius is false.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the prolonge is an automatic then the larvicide volleys does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the nitrile does not activate genius the larvicide is a volley. sent2: if that the prolonge is a kind of an automatic is not incorrect that the nitrile does activate genius but it does not activate headship is incorrect. sent3: the fact that the nitrile is a volley that does activate genius is wrong if the larvicide activates headship. sent4: that the nitrile does activate headship and is not an automatic is not true. sent5: if the respecter is automatic then that it does shiver minimization and does not activate genius is not right. sent6: that the larvicide does activate headship and it is a volley is wrong if the prolonge is automatic. sent7: the fact that the nitrile does activate genius and is a Caranx does not hold. sent8: if that the nitrile activates genius but it does not activate headship does not hold the larvicide volleys. sent9: the prolonge activates headship if that the nitrile activates genius but it is not automatic is not correct. sent10: the fact that the larvicide does activate genius but it does not volley does not hold. sent11: that the nitrile activates genius but it does not volley is not right. sent12: the shaft activates headship. sent13: that that something is unpronounceable but it does not activate genius is not incorrect is wrong if it is an automatic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the prolonge is a kind of an automatic.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the nitrile does activate genius and does not activate headship is not correct.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the larvicide does volley.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__