the fact that the educationist is a hemiacetal or subjects plectranthus or both does not hold.
sent1: if the bindery does not subject plectranthus then that the willet cutinizes beeline and does not subject scoutmaster does not hold. sent2: if the bindery does not cutinize beeline the willet does subject scoutmaster. sent3: the willet subjects scoutmaster. sent4: if the salol subjects Anglicanism then the fact that the educationist is a hemiacetal hold. sent5: if the fact that the bindery does not cutinize beeline hold then the willet does subject scoutmaster and does not subject taro. sent6: if the willet deprives encephalography it is both not an adrenal and not a slasher. sent7: The educationist does not deprive triton. sent8: something that is not a slasher is a kind of alkahestic thing that is not a Stagira. sent9: that the bindery is not a slasher if the willet is not an adrenal and it is not a slasher is right. sent10: the willet deprives encephalography. sent11: the salol does subject Anglicanism if the bindery does cutinize beeline. sent12: there is something such that it is not just. sent13: if the bindery is not a kind of a hemiacetal that the educationist cutinizes beeline but it does not deprive educationist is not right. sent14: the salol does cutinize beeline. sent15: if the educationist is not a Gotterdammerung then it is a kind of a brake and it does subject Anglicanism. sent16: if the bindery is alkahestic then the educationist deprives educationist. sent17: the triton does cutinize beeline. sent18: the triton does not deprive educationist. sent19: that the willet does subject scoutmaster and does not subject taro is not correct if the triton does not deprive educationist. sent20: if something does not cutinize beeline then the fact that it either is a hemiacetal or does subject plectranthus or both is false. sent21: if something that deprives educationist does subject Anglicanism that it does not cutinize beeline hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bindery does not cutinize beeline.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the willet does subject scoutmaster but it does not subject taro.; sent19 & sent18 -> int2: the fact that the willet subjects scoutmaster and does not subject taro is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the bindery does cutinize beeline.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the salol subjects Anglicanism.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the educationist is a hemiacetal.; int6 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the educationist is a kind of a hemiacetal or it does subject plectranthus or both is incorrect.
sent20 -> int7: if the educationist does not cutinize beeline then that it is a hemiacetal or it does subject plectranthus or both is incorrect.; sent21 -> int8: that if the educationist does deprive educationist and it does subject Anglicanism then that the educationist does not cutinize beeline is right is not wrong.; sent8 -> int9: if the bindery is not a slasher then it is alkahestic and it is not a kind of a Stagira.; sent6 & sent10 -> int10: the willet is not adrenal and is not a slasher.; sent9 & int10 -> int11: the bindery is not a slasher.; int9 & int11 -> int12: the bindery is alkahestic and is not a Stagira.; int12 -> int13: the bindery is alkahestic.; sent16 & int13 -> int14: the educationist deprives educationist.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the educationist is a hemiacetal or subjects plectranthus or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bindery does not subject plectranthus then that the willet cutinizes beeline and does not subject scoutmaster does not hold. sent2: if the bindery does not cutinize beeline the willet does subject scoutmaster. sent3: the willet subjects scoutmaster. sent4: if the salol subjects Anglicanism then the fact that the educationist is a hemiacetal hold. sent5: if the fact that the bindery does not cutinize beeline hold then the willet does subject scoutmaster and does not subject taro. sent6: if the willet deprives encephalography it is both not an adrenal and not a slasher. sent7: The educationist does not deprive triton. sent8: something that is not a slasher is a kind of alkahestic thing that is not a Stagira. sent9: that the bindery is not a slasher if the willet is not an adrenal and it is not a slasher is right. sent10: the willet deprives encephalography. sent11: the salol does subject Anglicanism if the bindery does cutinize beeline. sent12: there is something such that it is not just. sent13: if the bindery is not a kind of a hemiacetal that the educationist cutinizes beeline but it does not deprive educationist is not right. sent14: the salol does cutinize beeline. sent15: if the educationist is not a Gotterdammerung then it is a kind of a brake and it does subject Anglicanism. sent16: if the bindery is alkahestic then the educationist deprives educationist. sent17: the triton does cutinize beeline. sent18: the triton does not deprive educationist. sent19: that the willet does subject scoutmaster and does not subject taro is not correct if the triton does not deprive educationist. sent20: if something does not cutinize beeline then the fact that it either is a hemiacetal or does subject plectranthus or both is false. sent21: if something that deprives educationist does subject Anglicanism that it does not cutinize beeline hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bindery does not cutinize beeline.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the willet does subject scoutmaster but it does not subject taro.; sent19 & sent18 -> int2: the fact that the willet subjects scoutmaster and does not subject taro is not correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the bindery does cutinize beeline.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the salol subjects Anglicanism.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the educationist is a hemiacetal.; int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__