the planner is animatistic.
sent1: if the fact that that the solitaire is a kind of a psephology is true is false the planner is not a soporific. sent2: there exists something such that it is carboxyl. sent3: the Laconian is not eschatological if the AAS does not fret superfecundation and does not interleave vagrancy. sent4: the elastase is not minimal. sent5: if something is a carboxyl then the elastase is not minimal and is a pier. sent6: if that the solitaire is a psephology and is not a desperate is not correct then the planner is not a kind of a soporific. sent7: if that something is not removable but it is a soporific is not right it is not a soporific. sent8: the fact that the solitaire is both a psephology and not a desperate is incorrect if the elastase is a pier. sent9: if something is not a kind of a soporific it is not animatistic. sent10: that the solitaire is a kind of a pier and it is a psephology is not true if the elastase is a kind of a desperate. sent11: if the agnathan does not fret strangulation then the AAS does not fret superfecundation and does not interleave vagrancy. sent12: if something is not eschatological then the fact that it is not removable and it is a soporific does not hold. sent13: the fact that something is both not a psephology and not a desperate is wrong if it is not a soporific. sent14: if that the Laconian is not a psephology and is not a kind of a desperate does not hold the solitaire is not a kind of a pier. sent15: either the agnathan does interleave multiplication or it is astronomic or both. sent16: the agnathan does not fret strangulation if either it interleaves multiplication or it is astronomic or both.
sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the elastase is not minimal but it is a pier.; int1 -> int2: that the elastase is a pier is right.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: the fact that the solitaire is a psephology but it is not a desperate does not hold.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the planner is not a soporific.; sent9 -> int5: the planner is not animatistic if it is not a soporific.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the planner is not non-animatistic.
sent13 -> int6: that the Laconian is not a psephology and not a desperate is wrong if it is not a soporific.; sent7 -> int7: the fact that the Laconian is not a kind of a soporific is correct if the fact that it is not removable and it is a soporific is not correct.; sent12 -> int8: the fact that the Laconian is not removable but it is a kind of a soporific does not hold if it is not eschatological.; sent16 & sent15 -> int9: the agnathan does not fret strangulation.; sent11 & int9 -> int10: the AAS does not fret superfecundation and it does not interleave vagrancy.; sent3 & int10 -> int11: the Laconian is not eschatological.; int8 & int11 -> int12: that the Laconian is irremovable thing that is a kind of a soporific is incorrect.; int7 & int12 -> int13: the Laconian is not a kind of a soporific.; int6 & int13 -> int14: that the Laconian is not a psephology and not a desperate is false.; sent14 & int14 -> int15: the solitaire is not a kind of a pier.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that that it is not a pier is not false.;
$hypothesis$ = the planner is animatistic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that that the solitaire is a kind of a psephology is true is false the planner is not a soporific. sent2: there exists something such that it is carboxyl. sent3: the Laconian is not eschatological if the AAS does not fret superfecundation and does not interleave vagrancy. sent4: the elastase is not minimal. sent5: if something is a carboxyl then the elastase is not minimal and is a pier. sent6: if that the solitaire is a psephology and is not a desperate is not correct then the planner is not a kind of a soporific. sent7: if that something is not removable but it is a soporific is not right it is not a soporific. sent8: the fact that the solitaire is both a psephology and not a desperate is incorrect if the elastase is a pier. sent9: if something is not a kind of a soporific it is not animatistic. sent10: that the solitaire is a kind of a pier and it is a psephology is not true if the elastase is a kind of a desperate. sent11: if the agnathan does not fret strangulation then the AAS does not fret superfecundation and does not interleave vagrancy. sent12: if something is not eschatological then the fact that it is not removable and it is a soporific does not hold. sent13: the fact that something is both not a psephology and not a desperate is wrong if it is not a soporific. sent14: if that the Laconian is not a psephology and is not a kind of a desperate does not hold the solitaire is not a kind of a pier. sent15: either the agnathan does interleave multiplication or it is astronomic or both. sent16: the agnathan does not fret strangulation if either it interleaves multiplication or it is astronomic or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 & sent5 -> int1: the elastase is not minimal but it is a pier.; int1 -> int2: that the elastase is a pier is right.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: the fact that the solitaire is a psephology but it is not a desperate does not hold.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the planner is not a soporific.; sent9 -> int5: the planner is not animatistic if it is not a soporific.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__