the synonymist is not a bottom.
sent1: the seaplane bottoms. sent2: the seaplane is tympanitic if there exists something such that the fact that it is spicate and it is a elucidation does not hold. sent3: the wallow causes antiviral if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of spicate thing that studs skullcap is false. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it studs skullcap and it causes antiviral is false then the wallow causes blackberry. sent5: the fact that the synonymist bottoms and it does stud skullcap does not hold. sent6: there is nothing such that it is spicate and it studs skullcap. sent7: if the seaplane is a kind of a elucidation then the hookup crabs. sent8: if a crab does not cause blackberry then the synonymist does bottom. sent9: if the wallow is tympanitic then that that it does not cause antiviral and does cause blackberry is not false is wrong. sent10: if the wallow causes antiviral the seaplane is a kind of a elucidation. sent11: something studs skullcap and it causes antiviral. sent12: something is bottom. sent13: the hookup is tympanitic. sent14: that the antineutrino is a kind of a elucidation and is rural does not hold. sent15: if that the hookup is not triumphal and does cause blackberry is not correct then that it does not cause blackberry is not incorrect. sent16: the Ephesians does stud skullcap. sent17: there exists nothing that is spicate and is triumphal. sent18: that the fact that the hookup does not bottom but it crabs is false is not incorrect. sent19: the seaplane is spicate. sent20: if the hookup is tympanitic then the fact that it is not triumphal and it does cause blackberry is not correct. sent21: the hookup is a passive.
sent6 -> int1: the fact that the hoofer is spicate thing that studs skullcap is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is spicate and does stud skullcap is wrong.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the wallow does cause antiviral.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the seaplane is a elucidation.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the hookup does crab.; sent20 & sent13 -> int6: the fact that the hookup is not triumphal but it does cause blackberry is not true.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the hookup does not cause blackberry hold.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the hookup is a crab but it does not cause blackberry.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it crabs and it does not cause blackberry.; int9 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the synonymist is not a bottom. ; $context$ = sent1: the seaplane bottoms. sent2: the seaplane is tympanitic if there exists something such that the fact that it is spicate and it is a elucidation does not hold. sent3: the wallow causes antiviral if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of spicate thing that studs skullcap is false. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it studs skullcap and it causes antiviral is false then the wallow causes blackberry. sent5: the fact that the synonymist bottoms and it does stud skullcap does not hold. sent6: there is nothing such that it is spicate and it studs skullcap. sent7: if the seaplane is a kind of a elucidation then the hookup crabs. sent8: if a crab does not cause blackberry then the synonymist does bottom. sent9: if the wallow is tympanitic then that that it does not cause antiviral and does cause blackberry is not false is wrong. sent10: if the wallow causes antiviral the seaplane is a kind of a elucidation. sent11: something studs skullcap and it causes antiviral. sent12: something is bottom. sent13: the hookup is tympanitic. sent14: that the antineutrino is a kind of a elucidation and is rural does not hold. sent15: if that the hookup is not triumphal and does cause blackberry is not correct then that it does not cause blackberry is not incorrect. sent16: the Ephesians does stud skullcap. sent17: there exists nothing that is spicate and is triumphal. sent18: that the fact that the hookup does not bottom but it crabs is false is not incorrect. sent19: the seaplane is spicate. sent20: if the hookup is tympanitic then the fact that it is not triumphal and it does cause blackberry is not correct. sent21: the hookup is a passive. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the fact that the hoofer is spicate thing that studs skullcap is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is spicate and does stud skullcap is wrong.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the wallow does cause antiviral.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the seaplane is a elucidation.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the hookup does crab.; sent20 & sent13 -> int6: the fact that the hookup is not triumphal but it does cause blackberry is not true.; sent15 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the hookup does not cause blackberry hold.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the hookup is a crab but it does not cause blackberry.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it crabs and it does not cause blackberry.; int9 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__