the dyspeptic is not meager.
sent1: there is something such that it spoils da'wah and it is testaceous. sent2: if the dyspeptic is not meager then that the cacodyl is nonarbitrary and it is a kind of a let is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that it is not testaceous. sent4: something does not impend and is a constructivist if it is testaceous. sent5: that the spa spoils cobalamin but it is not a kind of a constructivist is false if the microsome does not spoils cobalamin. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Thoth. sent7: there exists something such that it spoils da'wah and it is not testaceous. sent8: if the spa is testaceous the microsome is testaceous. sent9: if that the cacodyl is nonarbitrary and it lets is wrong the microsome does not spoil cobalamin. sent10: something is not meager if it does not spoil cobalamin and/or it is not meager. sent11: something spoils da'wah. sent12: if that something is a kind of non-penal thing that is not a fastnacht is incorrect it spoils da'wah. sent13: if the microsome does not impend but it is a constructivist the cacodyl is not a constructivist. sent14: the plank is a oculomotor if something is a kind of a Thoth. sent15: if something is a constructivist it does not spoil cobalamin and/or it is not meager. sent16: the microsome is not testaceous. sent17: if the cacodyl is not a kind of a let then the fact that the dyspeptic is a let and not meager does not hold. sent18: the microsome does not spoil cobalamin if that the cacodyl is not nonarbitrary hold. sent19: if that the spa does spoil cobalamin and is not a constructivist is false it impends. sent20: the fact that the spa impends if the spa does not spoil cobalamin is correct. sent21: if something that does spoil da'wah is not testaceous the spa does not impend. sent22: the dyspeptic is a constructivist if the cacodyl is not a constructivist and spoils da'wah.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dyspeptic is not meager.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the cacodyl is nonarbitrary and it lets is incorrect.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the microsome does not spoil cobalamin.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: that the spa spoils cobalamin and is not a constructivist is not right.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the spa does impend.; sent7 & sent21 -> int5: the spa does not impend.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the dyspeptic is not meager is not false.
sent10 -> int7: if the dyspeptic does not spoil cobalamin or is not meager or both it is not meager.; sent15 -> int8: either the dyspeptic does not spoil cobalamin or it is not meager or both if it is a constructivist.; sent4 -> int9: if the microsome is testaceous then it does not impend and is a constructivist.; sent12 -> int10: the cacodyl does spoil da'wah if that it is not penal and it is not a kind of a fastnacht is not right.; sent6 & sent14 -> int11: the plank is a oculomotor.; int11 -> int12: something is a kind of a oculomotor.;
$hypothesis$ = the dyspeptic is not meager. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it spoils da'wah and it is testaceous. sent2: if the dyspeptic is not meager then that the cacodyl is nonarbitrary and it is a kind of a let is not correct. sent3: there exists something such that it is not testaceous. sent4: something does not impend and is a constructivist if it is testaceous. sent5: that the spa spoils cobalamin but it is not a kind of a constructivist is false if the microsome does not spoils cobalamin. sent6: there exists something such that it is a Thoth. sent7: there exists something such that it spoils da'wah and it is not testaceous. sent8: if the spa is testaceous the microsome is testaceous. sent9: if that the cacodyl is nonarbitrary and it lets is wrong the microsome does not spoil cobalamin. sent10: something is not meager if it does not spoil cobalamin and/or it is not meager. sent11: something spoils da'wah. sent12: if that something is a kind of non-penal thing that is not a fastnacht is incorrect it spoils da'wah. sent13: if the microsome does not impend but it is a constructivist the cacodyl is not a constructivist. sent14: the plank is a oculomotor if something is a kind of a Thoth. sent15: if something is a constructivist it does not spoil cobalamin and/or it is not meager. sent16: the microsome is not testaceous. sent17: if the cacodyl is not a kind of a let then the fact that the dyspeptic is a let and not meager does not hold. sent18: the microsome does not spoil cobalamin if that the cacodyl is not nonarbitrary hold. sent19: if that the spa does spoil cobalamin and is not a constructivist is false it impends. sent20: the fact that the spa impends if the spa does not spoil cobalamin is correct. sent21: if something that does spoil da'wah is not testaceous the spa does not impend. sent22: the dyspeptic is a constructivist if the cacodyl is not a constructivist and spoils da'wah. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dyspeptic is not meager.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the cacodyl is nonarbitrary and it lets is incorrect.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the microsome does not spoil cobalamin.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: that the spa spoils cobalamin and is not a constructivist is not right.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the spa does impend.; sent7 & sent21 -> int5: the spa does not impend.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__