the fact that the moorcock is both not a Alsophila and an overshoot does not hold.
sent1: the heliotropism over shoots. sent2: either the jujube is lithic or it does not covet Koasati or both if the flap is a Hooker. sent3: the heliotropism is a kind of a radicalism. sent4: if the jujube is not a radicalism then that the moorcock is not a kind of a Alsophila and is an overshoot does not hold. sent5: if something is proteinaceous it is a radicalism. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Alsophila is correct the moorcock is not a radicalism but an overshoot. sent7: the moorcock does overshoot if the jujube does overshoot. sent8: something is proteinaceous but not a radicalism if it does not covet Koasati. sent9: if the Saudi is a northwester the moorcock is not a kind of a salience. sent10: the moorcock is a kind of an overshoot if there is something such that it is a radicalism. sent11: that the flap is both a Hooker and lithic is wrong if there is something such that it is nonretractile. sent12: the moorcock does overshoot. sent13: the moorcock covets Koasati and is proteinaceous if it is not a salience. sent14: if something either is lithic or does not covet Koasati or both then the fact that it does not covet Koasati hold. sent15: the moorcock is hooflike. sent16: the Saudi is either a northwester or not a salience or both. sent17: the moorcock is not a kind of a Alsophila but it does overshoot if there exists something such that it is a radicalism. sent18: there exists something such that it is unrespectable. sent19: there is something such that it is nonretractile. sent20: the flap is a Hooker if the fact that the Saudi is not a salience but it is nonretractile is false.
sent3 -> int1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a radicalism.; int1 & sent17 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the moorcock is not a kind of a Alsophila but it is an overshoot is wrong.
sent8 -> int2: that if the jujube does not covet Koasati then the jujube is proteinaceous but it is not a kind of a radicalism is right.; sent14 -> int3: the jujube does not covet Koasati if either it is lithic or it does not covet Koasati or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the moorcock is both not a Alsophila and an overshoot does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the heliotropism over shoots. sent2: either the jujube is lithic or it does not covet Koasati or both if the flap is a Hooker. sent3: the heliotropism is a kind of a radicalism. sent4: if the jujube is not a radicalism then that the moorcock is not a kind of a Alsophila and is an overshoot does not hold. sent5: if something is proteinaceous it is a radicalism. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Alsophila is correct the moorcock is not a radicalism but an overshoot. sent7: the moorcock does overshoot if the jujube does overshoot. sent8: something is proteinaceous but not a radicalism if it does not covet Koasati. sent9: if the Saudi is a northwester the moorcock is not a kind of a salience. sent10: the moorcock is a kind of an overshoot if there is something such that it is a radicalism. sent11: that the flap is both a Hooker and lithic is wrong if there is something such that it is nonretractile. sent12: the moorcock does overshoot. sent13: the moorcock covets Koasati and is proteinaceous if it is not a salience. sent14: if something either is lithic or does not covet Koasati or both then the fact that it does not covet Koasati hold. sent15: the moorcock is hooflike. sent16: the Saudi is either a northwester or not a salience or both. sent17: the moorcock is not a kind of a Alsophila but it does overshoot if there exists something such that it is a radicalism. sent18: there exists something such that it is unrespectable. sent19: there is something such that it is nonretractile. sent20: the flap is a Hooker if the fact that the Saudi is not a salience but it is nonretractile is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a radicalism.; int1 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__