the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it does own parisology and is semantic is correct does not hold.
sent1: the dummy is tensional and dark if the jodhpurs is not a arithmancy. sent2: if the ale owns postulant then it is a arithmancy. sent3: the jodhpurs is not a Jeremiah. sent4: something deaminates setting if the fact that that it is a Montreal and not a costermonger hold is not true. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a arithmancy the fact that the dummy is a kind of non-tensional thing that does not tunnel bitterwood is not false. sent6: something that does own postulant is a arithmancy. sent7: that the ale does deaminate outdoorswoman and it owns postulant is wrong if the jodhpurs is not a Jeremiah. sent8: there exists something such that it is semantic. sent9: the dummy does not tunnel bitterwood if there is something such that it is a kind of a arithmancy. sent10: something tunnels bitterwood if it is not uneager and it is not a arithmancy. sent11: something does rattle and it is a kind of a Miocene. sent12: that the jodhpurs is semantic hold if that the dummy is not semantic and it is non-tensional is false. sent13: the jodhpurs does not own postulant. sent14: if that something does deaminate outdoorswoman and does not own postulant is not true it is a kind of a arithmancy. sent15: if a incommensurate thing does not deploy then it is tonal. sent16: if something is not a arithmancy then the fact that it is non-semantic thing that is not tensional is not correct. sent17: if the jodhpurs is not a Jeremiah then that the ale deaminates outdoorswoman and does not own postulant is not true. sent18: the dummy does not tunnel bitterwood. sent19: the dummy is uneager. sent20: the jodhpurs does tunnel bitterwood. sent21: the fact that the dummy is semantic and it is not eager is not incorrect. sent22: if the jodhpurs is not tensional and not semantic it is a kind of a Jeremiah. sent23: there exists something such that it owns parisology. sent24: if something is not tensional and it does not tunnel bitterwood it does own parisology.
sent14 -> int1: the ale is a arithmancy if that it deaminates outdoorswoman and it does not own postulant does not hold.; sent17 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the ale does deaminate outdoorswoman but it does not own postulant is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ale is a arithmancy.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that that it is a arithmancy hold.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the dummy is not tensional and it does not tunnel bitterwood.; sent24 -> int6: if the dummy is a kind of non-tensional thing that does not tunnel bitterwood then the fact that it does own parisology is correct.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the dummy does own parisology.; sent21 -> int8: the dummy is not non-semantic.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the dummy does own parisology and is semantic.; int9 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that it is dark thing that does disturb.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it does own parisology and is semantic is correct does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the dummy is tensional and dark if the jodhpurs is not a arithmancy. sent2: if the ale owns postulant then it is a arithmancy. sent3: the jodhpurs is not a Jeremiah. sent4: something deaminates setting if the fact that that it is a Montreal and not a costermonger hold is not true. sent5: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a arithmancy the fact that the dummy is a kind of non-tensional thing that does not tunnel bitterwood is not false. sent6: something that does own postulant is a arithmancy. sent7: that the ale does deaminate outdoorswoman and it owns postulant is wrong if the jodhpurs is not a Jeremiah. sent8: there exists something such that it is semantic. sent9: the dummy does not tunnel bitterwood if there is something such that it is a kind of a arithmancy. sent10: something tunnels bitterwood if it is not uneager and it is not a arithmancy. sent11: something does rattle and it is a kind of a Miocene. sent12: that the jodhpurs is semantic hold if that the dummy is not semantic and it is non-tensional is false. sent13: the jodhpurs does not own postulant. sent14: if that something does deaminate outdoorswoman and does not own postulant is not true it is a kind of a arithmancy. sent15: if a incommensurate thing does not deploy then it is tonal. sent16: if something is not a arithmancy then the fact that it is non-semantic thing that is not tensional is not correct. sent17: if the jodhpurs is not a Jeremiah then that the ale deaminates outdoorswoman and does not own postulant is not true. sent18: the dummy does not tunnel bitterwood. sent19: the dummy is uneager. sent20: the jodhpurs does tunnel bitterwood. sent21: the fact that the dummy is semantic and it is not eager is not incorrect. sent22: if the jodhpurs is not tensional and not semantic it is a kind of a Jeremiah. sent23: there exists something such that it owns parisology. sent24: if something is not tensional and it does not tunnel bitterwood it does own parisology. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 -> int1: the ale is a arithmancy if that it deaminates outdoorswoman and it does not own postulant does not hold.; sent17 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the ale does deaminate outdoorswoman but it does not own postulant is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ale is a arithmancy.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that that it is a arithmancy hold.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the dummy is not tensional and it does not tunnel bitterwood.; sent24 -> int6: if the dummy is a kind of non-tensional thing that does not tunnel bitterwood then the fact that it does own parisology is correct.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the dummy does own parisology.; sent21 -> int8: the dummy is not non-semantic.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the dummy does own parisology and is semantic.; int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__