that the hugger does not revenge opacification but it is a kind of a Tagalog is false.
sent1: the fact that the hugger does not revenge opacification and is a kind of a Tagalog does not hold if the fact that the beech is deconstructionist hold. sent2: the beech is deconstructionist if that the emigrant settles electronegativity is not incorrect. sent3: if the emigrant is a peeve that the beech does not settle electronegativity and is deconstructionist is not correct. sent4: the fact that the emigrant does settle electronegativity but it is not a kind of a peeve is wrong. sent5: the quitter is a kneel and it is a kind of a rigging. sent6: if the emigrant settles electronegativity then the hugger does not revenge opacification but it is a Tagalog. sent7: if something is not a kind of a peeve the fact that it does not settle electronegativity and it is not deconstructionist does not hold. sent8: the vower is a mask. sent9: the beech is deconstructionist if that the emigrant does not settle electronegativity and does not peeve is wrong. sent10: the emigrant does not settle electronegativity. sent11: that the hugger does revenge opacification and it is a Tagalog is not true. sent12: that the hugger is not a peeve but it does revenge opacification is wrong. sent13: the CO is a Tagalog. sent14: the hugger is not deconstructionist and does not revenge opacification. sent15: the emigrant peeves. sent16: that the hugger revenges opacification and is a Tagalog is false if the beech is deconstructionist. sent17: if something kneels then that the ramipril is microsomal thing that is lovable is false. sent18: the vower does not settle electronegativity and is not a kind of a drivel. sent19: the fact that the fact that the emigrant is both not deconstructionist and not a peeve does not hold is right. sent20: the hugger settles electronegativity if that the emigrant does not revenge opacification and is not a kind of a peeve does not hold. sent21: that the emigrant is not deconstructionist but it does settle electronegativity is incorrect if the hugger does revenge opacification.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the emigrant does not settle electronegativity and it does not peeve.; assump1 -> int1: the emigrant is not a kind of a peeve.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the emigrant does not settle electronegativity and it does not peeve is incorrect.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the beech is deconstructionist.; sent1 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the hugger does not revenge opacification but it is a Tagalog.
sent7 -> int5: if the beech is not a peeve then that it does not settle electronegativity and it is not deconstructionist does not hold.; sent5 -> int6: the quitter does kneel.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is a kneel.; int7 & sent17 -> int8: that the ramipril is microsomal and is lovable is wrong.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that that it is a kind of microsomal thing that is lovable is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = that the hugger does not revenge opacification but it is a kind of a Tagalog is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the hugger does not revenge opacification and is a kind of a Tagalog does not hold if the fact that the beech is deconstructionist hold. sent2: the beech is deconstructionist if that the emigrant settles electronegativity is not incorrect. sent3: if the emigrant is a peeve that the beech does not settle electronegativity and is deconstructionist is not correct. sent4: the fact that the emigrant does settle electronegativity but it is not a kind of a peeve is wrong. sent5: the quitter is a kneel and it is a kind of a rigging. sent6: if the emigrant settles electronegativity then the hugger does not revenge opacification but it is a Tagalog. sent7: if something is not a kind of a peeve the fact that it does not settle electronegativity and it is not deconstructionist does not hold. sent8: the vower is a mask. sent9: the beech is deconstructionist if that the emigrant does not settle electronegativity and does not peeve is wrong. sent10: the emigrant does not settle electronegativity. sent11: that the hugger does revenge opacification and it is a Tagalog is not true. sent12: that the hugger is not a peeve but it does revenge opacification is wrong. sent13: the CO is a Tagalog. sent14: the hugger is not deconstructionist and does not revenge opacification. sent15: the emigrant peeves. sent16: that the hugger revenges opacification and is a Tagalog is false if the beech is deconstructionist. sent17: if something kneels then that the ramipril is microsomal thing that is lovable is false. sent18: the vower does not settle electronegativity and is not a kind of a drivel. sent19: the fact that the fact that the emigrant is both not deconstructionist and not a peeve does not hold is right. sent20: the hugger settles electronegativity if that the emigrant does not revenge opacification and is not a kind of a peeve does not hold. sent21: that the emigrant is not deconstructionist but it does settle electronegativity is incorrect if the hugger does revenge opacification. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the emigrant does not settle electronegativity and it does not peeve.; assump1 -> int1: the emigrant is not a kind of a peeve.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the emigrant does not settle electronegativity and it does not peeve is incorrect.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the beech is deconstructionist.; sent1 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__