the fact that the smearing happens and the lymphoidness does not occur is not correct.
sent1: the driedness is prevented by that both the anti-semiticness and the whizzing occurs. sent2: if the fact that the bankrupting Elinvar does not occur and/or the drawing happens is wrong the anti-semiticness occurs. sent3: the driedness occurs. sent4: the fruiting happens. sent5: the stipulation happens. sent6: if the dried occurs that the smearing happens is not wrong. sent7: if the drying does not occur the fact that not the fruit but the womanliness happens is not right. sent8: if the stunting confutation does not occur the computerization and/or the graphic occurs. sent9: if the bankrupting Muybridge does not occur the lymphoidness does not occur. sent10: that both the womanliness and the bankrupting Muybridge happens prevents the fruit. sent11: if the stipulation does not occur then the fact that the smear but not the lymphoidness occurs is not right. sent12: if that the womanliness does not occur is not wrong the fact that the stipulation but not the bankrupting Muybridge happens is not correct. sent13: the fact that the bankrupting Elinvar does not occur and/or the drawing occurs is wrong. sent14: the resorting does not occur. sent15: the stipulation and the womanliness happens. sent16: that the adynamicness and the whizzing happens is triggered by the non-centeredness.
sent15 -> int1: the womanliness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bankrupting Muybridge happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the womanliness and the bankrupting Muybridge happens.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the fruit does not occur.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the bankrupting Muybridge does not occur is not incorrect.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the lymphoidness does not occur.; sent6 & sent3 -> int7: the smear occurs.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the fact that both the smear and the non-lymphoidness happens is false.
sent2 & sent13 -> int8: the anti-semiticness happens.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the smearing happens and the lymphoidness does not occur is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the driedness is prevented by that both the anti-semiticness and the whizzing occurs. sent2: if the fact that the bankrupting Elinvar does not occur and/or the drawing happens is wrong the anti-semiticness occurs. sent3: the driedness occurs. sent4: the fruiting happens. sent5: the stipulation happens. sent6: if the dried occurs that the smearing happens is not wrong. sent7: if the drying does not occur the fact that not the fruit but the womanliness happens is not right. sent8: if the stunting confutation does not occur the computerization and/or the graphic occurs. sent9: if the bankrupting Muybridge does not occur the lymphoidness does not occur. sent10: that both the womanliness and the bankrupting Muybridge happens prevents the fruit. sent11: if the stipulation does not occur then the fact that the smear but not the lymphoidness occurs is not right. sent12: if that the womanliness does not occur is not wrong the fact that the stipulation but not the bankrupting Muybridge happens is not correct. sent13: the fact that the bankrupting Elinvar does not occur and/or the drawing occurs is wrong. sent14: the resorting does not occur. sent15: the stipulation and the womanliness happens. sent16: that the adynamicness and the whizzing happens is triggered by the non-centeredness. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 -> int1: the womanliness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bankrupting Muybridge happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the womanliness and the bankrupting Muybridge happens.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the fruit does not occur.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the bankrupting Muybridge does not occur is not incorrect.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the lymphoidness does not occur.; sent6 & sent3 -> int7: the smear occurs.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__