the trap is not a Musa.
sent1: if something is a kind of a rimmed that the wildlife is a putter that is a pyrilamine does not hold. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a nogging and does expire whisk is incorrect if it accretes risklessness is not incorrect. sent3: if the trap is a passenger and does collar rupee it is not philosophic. sent4: the fact that if the wildlife does collar rupee the fact that the psylla does collar rupee is not wrong is not false. sent5: that something is not a kind of a passenger and does not collar rupee is false if it is not philosophic. sent6: the trap is a kind of a passenger. sent7: the trap is a kind of a hare. sent8: the trap is a Musa if it does not collar rupee. sent9: that the hobbledehoy is a Musa is not incorrect if the psylla collars rupee. sent10: the Almoravid is philosophic and it is celiac. sent11: the lamination accretes risklessness. sent12: that something is a nogging but it is not a Musa is wrong if the fact that it expires whisk is correct. sent13: if that something is a kind of a putter that is a kind of a pyrilamine does not hold then it is not a kind of a putter. sent14: if the wildlife is not a putter then that it is not a kind of a Ivry and is a jam is not true. sent15: the wildlife does expire sparer if the fact that it is not a kind of a Ivry and is a jam is not true. sent16: if the hobbledehoy is a Musa and it is a kind of a passenger then the trap is not a Musa. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rimmed. sent18: the trap does expire whisk. sent19: if the grey collars rupee and it is a slip it is not a kind of a chaplaincy. sent20: if something expires sparer it does collar rupee. sent21: the trap is philosophic. sent22: if that something is not a kind of a nogging and does expire whisk does not hold that it is philosophic is true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trap does collar rupee.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the trap is a passenger that does collar rupee hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the trap is not philosophic.; int2 & sent21 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the trap does not collar rupee.; int4 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the trap is not a kind of a Musa.
sent20 -> int5: if the wildlife does expire sparer then it does collar rupee.; sent13 -> int6: the wildlife is not a putter if the fact that it is a putter and is a pyrilamine is not right.; sent17 & sent1 -> int7: that the wildlife is a putter and is a pyrilamine does not hold.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the wildlife is not a kind of a putter.; sent14 & int8 -> int9: that the wildlife is both not a Ivry and a jam is not true.; sent15 & int9 -> int10: the wildlife expires sparer.; int5 & int10 -> int11: the wildlife does collar rupee.; sent4 & int11 -> int12: the psylla does collar rupee.; sent9 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the hobbledehoy is a Musa is correct.; sent22 -> int14: if the fact that that the lamination is not a kind of a nogging and expires whisk does not hold hold then that it is philosophic is not incorrect.; sent2 -> int15: if the lamination accretes risklessness the fact that the fact that it is not a kind of a nogging and it does expire whisk is right does not hold.; int15 & sent11 -> int16: the fact that the lamination is not a nogging but it expires whisk is false.; int14 & int16 -> int17: the lamination is philosophic.; int17 -> int18: there exists something such that it is philosophic.;
$hypothesis$ = the trap is not a Musa. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a rimmed that the wildlife is a putter that is a pyrilamine does not hold. sent2: that the fact that something is not a kind of a nogging and does expire whisk is incorrect if it accretes risklessness is not incorrect. sent3: if the trap is a passenger and does collar rupee it is not philosophic. sent4: the fact that if the wildlife does collar rupee the fact that the psylla does collar rupee is not wrong is not false. sent5: that something is not a kind of a passenger and does not collar rupee is false if it is not philosophic. sent6: the trap is a kind of a passenger. sent7: the trap is a kind of a hare. sent8: the trap is a Musa if it does not collar rupee. sent9: that the hobbledehoy is a Musa is not incorrect if the psylla collars rupee. sent10: the Almoravid is philosophic and it is celiac. sent11: the lamination accretes risklessness. sent12: that something is a nogging but it is not a Musa is wrong if the fact that it expires whisk is correct. sent13: if that something is a kind of a putter that is a kind of a pyrilamine does not hold then it is not a kind of a putter. sent14: if the wildlife is not a putter then that it is not a kind of a Ivry and is a jam is not true. sent15: the wildlife does expire sparer if the fact that it is not a kind of a Ivry and is a jam is not true. sent16: if the hobbledehoy is a Musa and it is a kind of a passenger then the trap is not a Musa. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rimmed. sent18: the trap does expire whisk. sent19: if the grey collars rupee and it is a slip it is not a kind of a chaplaincy. sent20: if something expires sparer it does collar rupee. sent21: the trap is philosophic. sent22: if that something is not a kind of a nogging and does expire whisk does not hold that it is philosophic is true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trap does collar rupee.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the trap is a passenger that does collar rupee hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the trap is not philosophic.; int2 & sent21 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the trap does not collar rupee.; int4 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__