the chestnut is not chromatinic but it is a tubeless.
sent1: the liftman perpetuates light and/or it is a kind of a teleconference. sent2: if the fact that something is prudent and/or it does not perpetuate Garonne hold then it is not elective. sent3: something is non-chromatinic if that it is prudent and/or it does not perpetuate Garonne does not hold. sent4: the fact that the jackhammer is a kind of a squelch that is an elective is wrong if the liftman is not conspiratorial. sent5: if that something is prudent or it does perpetuate Garonne or both is incorrect then it is not chromatinic. sent6: the liftman is not conspiratorial. sent7: the jackhammer is not conspiratorial if there is something such that it does perpetuate light. sent8: the fact that the talipot is not an elective is not false if it does not perpetuate Garonne. sent9: the fact that the midgrass is not a teleconference but conspiratorial does not hold. sent10: the fact that the chestnut is a kind of non-chromatinic a tubeless is not true if the fact that the talipot is not non-chromatinic is not wrong. sent11: the talipot is not chromatinic if the fact that it is prudent or does perpetuate Garonne or both does not hold. sent12: if something is not a kind of a teleconference then it does not perpetuate light or is not conspiratorial or both. sent13: the fact that the talipot does perpetuate Garonne is not false. sent14: if the fact that something does not perpetuate Garonne hold it is not an elective. sent15: the jackhammer is not a squelch if the talipot is not elective. sent16: the chestnut is a kudzu if it is not apomictic. sent17: the talipot does not squelch. sent18: if there is something such that it perpetuates light or it is a teleconference or both then the jackhammer is not conspiratorial. sent19: if something is a tubeless and/or it squelches the chestnut is not chromatinic. sent20: the jackhammer is conspiratorial if it is not chromatinic. sent21: if something is not conspiratorial then it does squelch. sent22: the pocket is a tubeless if the jackhammer does not perpetuate light. sent23: the jackhammer is not a teleconference if the liftman does not squelch. sent24: that the fact that the chestnut is chromatinic and is tubeless is not wrong does not hold. sent25: either the talipot is prudent or it perpetuates Garonne or both.
sent2 -> int1: if either the talipot is prudent or it does not perpetuate Garonne or both it is not a kind of an elective.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the talipot is not imprudent or it does not perpetuate Garonne or both.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the talipot is not a kind of an elective.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the jackhammer does not squelch.; sent21 -> int4: the jackhammer squelches if it is not conspiratorial.; sent1 -> int5: something perpetuates light or it is a teleconference or both.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the jackhammer is not conspiratorial.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the jackhammer squelches.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the talipot is prudent and/or it does not perpetuate Garonne does not hold.; sent3 -> int10: if the fact that the talipot is prudent or does not perpetuate Garonne or both is not true then it is not chromatinic.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the talipot is not chromatinic.; int11 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the chestnut is not chromatinic but it is a kind of a tubeless.
sent9 -> int12: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a teleconference and not non-conspiratorial is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the chestnut is not chromatinic but it is a tubeless. ; $context$ = sent1: the liftman perpetuates light and/or it is a kind of a teleconference. sent2: if the fact that something is prudent and/or it does not perpetuate Garonne hold then it is not elective. sent3: something is non-chromatinic if that it is prudent and/or it does not perpetuate Garonne does not hold. sent4: the fact that the jackhammer is a kind of a squelch that is an elective is wrong if the liftman is not conspiratorial. sent5: if that something is prudent or it does perpetuate Garonne or both is incorrect then it is not chromatinic. sent6: the liftman is not conspiratorial. sent7: the jackhammer is not conspiratorial if there is something such that it does perpetuate light. sent8: the fact that the talipot is not an elective is not false if it does not perpetuate Garonne. sent9: the fact that the midgrass is not a teleconference but conspiratorial does not hold. sent10: the fact that the chestnut is a kind of non-chromatinic a tubeless is not true if the fact that the talipot is not non-chromatinic is not wrong. sent11: the talipot is not chromatinic if the fact that it is prudent or does perpetuate Garonne or both does not hold. sent12: if something is not a kind of a teleconference then it does not perpetuate light or is not conspiratorial or both. sent13: the fact that the talipot does perpetuate Garonne is not false. sent14: if the fact that something does not perpetuate Garonne hold it is not an elective. sent15: the jackhammer is not a squelch if the talipot is not elective. sent16: the chestnut is a kudzu if it is not apomictic. sent17: the talipot does not squelch. sent18: if there is something such that it perpetuates light or it is a teleconference or both then the jackhammer is not conspiratorial. sent19: if something is a tubeless and/or it squelches the chestnut is not chromatinic. sent20: the jackhammer is conspiratorial if it is not chromatinic. sent21: if something is not conspiratorial then it does squelch. sent22: the pocket is a tubeless if the jackhammer does not perpetuate light. sent23: the jackhammer is not a teleconference if the liftman does not squelch. sent24: that the fact that the chestnut is chromatinic and is tubeless is not wrong does not hold. sent25: either the talipot is prudent or it perpetuates Garonne or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: if either the talipot is prudent or it does not perpetuate Garonne or both it is not a kind of an elective.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the talipot is not imprudent or it does not perpetuate Garonne or both.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the talipot is not a kind of an elective.; int2 & sent15 -> int3: the jackhammer does not squelch.; sent21 -> int4: the jackhammer squelches if it is not conspiratorial.; sent1 -> int5: something perpetuates light or it is a teleconference or both.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the jackhammer is not conspiratorial.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the jackhammer squelches.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the talipot is prudent and/or it does not perpetuate Garonne does not hold.; sent3 -> int10: if the fact that the talipot is prudent or does not perpetuate Garonne or both is not true then it is not chromatinic.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the talipot is not chromatinic.; int11 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__