the gunsight is a voyeurism.
sent1: if the physicist is a canalization the neckcloth does scout Norwegian. sent2: something is not a voyeurism if it is a kind of a Curacao and it is biauricular. sent3: if that something is not biauricular but it is a Curacao is wrong then it is not biauricular. sent4: that the chrysomelid does not empty microeconomist is not wrong. sent5: if the gunsight empties physicist it is biauricular. sent6: the fact that the gunsight is a kind of non-sarcolemmal thing that is microsomal does not hold. sent7: the physicist is a canalization if the chrysomelid does consolidate upstroke. sent8: the duplicator is not a kind of a Curacao. sent9: if something scouts Norwegian then it is not a Curacao. sent10: the gunsight is a Curacao. sent11: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not empty microeconomist is not false it does consolidate upstroke and/or is a kind of a canalization. sent12: something empties physicist if that it is non-sarcolemmal and not non-microsomal is not correct.
sent12 -> int1: if the fact that the gunsight is not sarcolemmal but it is microsomal is incorrect then it empties physicist.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the gunsight empties physicist.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the gunsight is biauricular.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the gunsight is a Curacao and it is biauricular.; sent2 -> int5: the gunsight is not a kind of a voyeurism if it is a Curacao and it is biauricular.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the gunsight is a voyeurism.
sent9 -> int6: that the neckcloth is not the Curacao if the neckcloth scouts Norwegian is correct.; sent11 & sent4 -> int7: the chrysomelid does consolidate upstroke and/or it is a canalization.;
$hypothesis$ = the gunsight is a voyeurism. ; $context$ = sent1: if the physicist is a canalization the neckcloth does scout Norwegian. sent2: something is not a voyeurism if it is a kind of a Curacao and it is biauricular. sent3: if that something is not biauricular but it is a Curacao is wrong then it is not biauricular. sent4: that the chrysomelid does not empty microeconomist is not wrong. sent5: if the gunsight empties physicist it is biauricular. sent6: the fact that the gunsight is a kind of non-sarcolemmal thing that is microsomal does not hold. sent7: the physicist is a canalization if the chrysomelid does consolidate upstroke. sent8: the duplicator is not a kind of a Curacao. sent9: if something scouts Norwegian then it is not a Curacao. sent10: the gunsight is a Curacao. sent11: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not empty microeconomist is not false it does consolidate upstroke and/or is a kind of a canalization. sent12: something empties physicist if that it is non-sarcolemmal and not non-microsomal is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: if the fact that the gunsight is not sarcolemmal but it is microsomal is incorrect then it empties physicist.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the gunsight empties physicist.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the gunsight is biauricular.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the gunsight is a Curacao and it is biauricular.; sent2 -> int5: the gunsight is not a kind of a voyeurism if it is a Curacao and it is biauricular.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__