that the colostrum does not blue Theophrastus but it cathects inspector is not correct.
sent1: the override is not accipitrine. sent2: the fact that the override is not an equivalence if that the subthalamus is a kind of a oxytetracycline is right is correct. sent3: if that that the override is a kind of a methamphetamine but it is not accipitrine is true is not true then it is not a posterior. sent4: if the silks does cathect inspector the colostrum does not blue Theophrastus but it does cathect inspector. sent5: the override is a kind of an equivalence if it is a kind of a methamphetamine and it is not accipitrine. sent6: if something is a posterior the fact that it does not philander benchmark and it is non-botulinal is false. sent7: if something is not a kind of a oxytetracycline then that it does not blue Theophrastus and it does not cathect inspector does not hold. sent8: that the subthalamus is non-alkaloidal a oxytetracycline does not hold. sent9: if the override is a methamphetamine and it is accipitrine that it is an equivalence is not wrong. sent10: that the colostrum cathects inspector and is an equivalence is incorrect. sent11: the fact that something does not blue Theophrastus and does cathect inspector is incorrect if it is not a posterior. sent12: if the override is accipitrine it is not a posterior. sent13: the override is a methamphetamine if it is not non-posterior but non-alkaloidal. sent14: that the silks does cathect inspector and is not eukaryotic is not right. sent15: that the colostrum does cathect inspector is correct if the silks does cathect inspector. sent16: that the subthalamus is not alkaloidal and it does not blue Theophrastus is incorrect. sent17: the colostrum cathects inspector. sent18: if the override is not a kind of a posterior then the silks cathects inspector. sent19: the override is not an equivalence if that the subthalamus is a kind of non-alkaloidal thing that is not a oxytetracycline does not hold. sent20: the fact that the subthalamus is not alkaloidal and is not a kind of a oxytetracycline is not correct. sent21: the beauty is an equivalence and it is a posterior if there is something such that it does cathect inspector. sent22: the fact that the override is a methamphetamine and it is accipitrine is incorrect. sent23: everything is not a oxytetracycline.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the override is a methamphetamine and not accipitrine.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the override is an equivalence.; sent19 & sent20 -> int2: the override is not an equivalence.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the override is a methamphetamine and is not accipitrine does not hold.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the override is not posterior.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the silks does cathect inspector.; int6 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the beauty does not philander benchmark and is not botulinal is not true.
sent6 -> int7: if that the beauty is a posterior is correct the fact that it does not philander benchmark and it is not botulinal is not right.; sent7 -> int8: if the colostrum is not a kind of a oxytetracycline that it does not blue Theophrastus and does not cathect inspector is false.; sent23 -> int9: the colostrum is not a oxytetracycline.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the colostrum does not blue Theophrastus and does not cathect inspector does not hold.; int10 -> int11: there is nothing such that it does not blue Theophrastus and does not cathect inspector.; int11 -> int12: the fact that the silks does not blue Theophrastus and it does not cathect inspector is not right.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that the fact that it does not blue Theophrastus and does not cathect inspector does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = that the colostrum does not blue Theophrastus but it cathects inspector is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the override is not accipitrine. sent2: the fact that the override is not an equivalence if that the subthalamus is a kind of a oxytetracycline is right is correct. sent3: if that that the override is a kind of a methamphetamine but it is not accipitrine is true is not true then it is not a posterior. sent4: if the silks does cathect inspector the colostrum does not blue Theophrastus but it does cathect inspector. sent5: the override is a kind of an equivalence if it is a kind of a methamphetamine and it is not accipitrine. sent6: if something is a posterior the fact that it does not philander benchmark and it is non-botulinal is false. sent7: if something is not a kind of a oxytetracycline then that it does not blue Theophrastus and it does not cathect inspector does not hold. sent8: that the subthalamus is non-alkaloidal a oxytetracycline does not hold. sent9: if the override is a methamphetamine and it is accipitrine that it is an equivalence is not wrong. sent10: that the colostrum cathects inspector and is an equivalence is incorrect. sent11: the fact that something does not blue Theophrastus and does cathect inspector is incorrect if it is not a posterior. sent12: if the override is accipitrine it is not a posterior. sent13: the override is a methamphetamine if it is not non-posterior but non-alkaloidal. sent14: that the silks does cathect inspector and is not eukaryotic is not right. sent15: that the colostrum does cathect inspector is correct if the silks does cathect inspector. sent16: that the subthalamus is not alkaloidal and it does not blue Theophrastus is incorrect. sent17: the colostrum cathects inspector. sent18: if the override is not a kind of a posterior then the silks cathects inspector. sent19: the override is not an equivalence if that the subthalamus is a kind of non-alkaloidal thing that is not a oxytetracycline does not hold. sent20: the fact that the subthalamus is not alkaloidal and is not a kind of a oxytetracycline is not correct. sent21: the beauty is an equivalence and it is a posterior if there is something such that it does cathect inspector. sent22: the fact that the override is a methamphetamine and it is accipitrine is incorrect. sent23: everything is not a oxytetracycline. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the override is a methamphetamine and not accipitrine.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the override is an equivalence.; sent19 & sent20 -> int2: the override is not an equivalence.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the override is a methamphetamine and is not accipitrine does not hold.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: the override is not posterior.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the silks does cathect inspector.; int6 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__