the fact that the surfeit does consubstantiate is incorrect.
sent1: if the fact that something is a startle but it is not unresponsive is not correct then it is a baronetcy. sent2: if the fact that something photosensitizes wardress but it is not a kind of a startled is wrong it is not a baronetcy. sent3: the surfeit does consubstantiate if the wardress is a startle but it is responsive. sent4: the fact that the surfeit photosensitizes wardress and it does consubstantiate is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the wardress consubstantiates but it is not unresponsive is not right then it does not photosensitize wardress. sent6: if either the snaffle does not consubstantiate or it photosensitizes wardress or both then that the surfeit does not consubstantiate is true. sent7: something does startle if that it consubstantiates and is not unresponsive is wrong. sent8: there is nothing such that it photosensitizes wardress and does not startle. sent9: the wardress does consubstantiate if the surfeit is a startle that is a kind of a baronetcy.
sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the wardress is a startle and not unresponsive does not hold then it is a baronetcy.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the wardress is a startle and is not unresponsive is incorrect.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the wardress is a baronetcy.; sent2 -> int3: the wardress is not a kind of a baronetcy if the fact that it does photosensitize wardress and is not a startled is false.; sent8 -> int4: the fact that the wardress photosensitizes wardress and is not a startled is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the wardress is not a baronetcy.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the wardress is a kind of a startle but it is not unresponsive.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the surfeit does not consubstantiate is not wrong.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the surfeit does consubstantiate is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is a startle but it is not unresponsive is not correct then it is a baronetcy. sent2: if the fact that something photosensitizes wardress but it is not a kind of a startled is wrong it is not a baronetcy. sent3: the surfeit does consubstantiate if the wardress is a startle but it is responsive. sent4: the fact that the surfeit photosensitizes wardress and it does consubstantiate is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the wardress consubstantiates but it is not unresponsive is not right then it does not photosensitize wardress. sent6: if either the snaffle does not consubstantiate or it photosensitizes wardress or both then that the surfeit does not consubstantiate is true. sent7: something does startle if that it consubstantiates and is not unresponsive is wrong. sent8: there is nothing such that it photosensitizes wardress and does not startle. sent9: the wardress does consubstantiate if the surfeit is a startle that is a kind of a baronetcy. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the wardress is a startle and not unresponsive does not hold then it is a baronetcy.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the wardress is a startle and is not unresponsive is incorrect.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the wardress is a baronetcy.; sent2 -> int3: the wardress is not a kind of a baronetcy if the fact that it does photosensitize wardress and is not a startled is false.; sent8 -> int4: the fact that the wardress photosensitizes wardress and is not a startled is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the wardress is not a baronetcy.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the wardress is a kind of a startle but it is not unresponsive.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__