the bellwort is a fishpond.
sent1: something does appropriate wattle and is single-lane if it does not divest. sent2: if the bellwort is a fishpond the liveryman does appropriate wattle. sent3: the market does not appropriate wattle. sent4: that the liveryman joints hold. sent5: the fact that the psychologist is a kind of a fishpond is not false. sent6: the psychologist does not divest if the fact that the liveryman does appropriate wattle and divest is not true. sent7: if the fact that the psychologist does divest and it does appropriate wattle does not hold then that the liveryman does not appropriate wattle hold. sent8: if the bellwort does appropriate wattle the psychologist is a fishpond. sent9: the gassing does not divest. sent10: the fact that the psychologist divests and it appropriates wattle is false. sent11: the fact that the liveryman is agrologic is correct. sent12: the liveryman is not a fishpond. sent13: if the liveryman is agrologic and appropriates photolithography the bellwort does not divest. sent14: the liveryman does not appropriate wattle if the psychologist does not divest.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bellwort is a kind of a fishpond.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the liveryman appropriates wattle.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the fact that the liveryman does not appropriate wattle hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the bellwort is a kind of a fishpond.
sent1 -> int4: the bellwort does appropriate wattle and is single-lane if it does not divest.;
$hypothesis$ = the bellwort is a fishpond. ; $context$ = sent1: something does appropriate wattle and is single-lane if it does not divest. sent2: if the bellwort is a fishpond the liveryman does appropriate wattle. sent3: the market does not appropriate wattle. sent4: that the liveryman joints hold. sent5: the fact that the psychologist is a kind of a fishpond is not false. sent6: the psychologist does not divest if the fact that the liveryman does appropriate wattle and divest is not true. sent7: if the fact that the psychologist does divest and it does appropriate wattle does not hold then that the liveryman does not appropriate wattle hold. sent8: if the bellwort does appropriate wattle the psychologist is a fishpond. sent9: the gassing does not divest. sent10: the fact that the psychologist divests and it appropriates wattle is false. sent11: the fact that the liveryman is agrologic is correct. sent12: the liveryman is not a fishpond. sent13: if the liveryman is agrologic and appropriates photolithography the bellwort does not divest. sent14: the liveryman does not appropriate wattle if the psychologist does not divest. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bellwort is a kind of a fishpond.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the liveryman appropriates wattle.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the fact that the liveryman does not appropriate wattle hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__