that if the avaram is cementitious then the fact that the liturgist is not a hands and is not leaden is false is not correct.
sent1: that the photoconductivity is non-cementitious and non-abomasal is not right. sent2: the fact that the liturgist is a kind of a hands but it is not leaden is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is caloric and it is archidiaconal does not hold. sent4: if the photoconductivity is not leaden then the fact that the liturgist is a hands that is not leaden is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that it is cementitious and it hands. sent6: if something is cementitious and it assails bronze the photoconductivity is not leaden. sent7: the exonuclease is not aeromedical. sent8: the hogfish is a rough. sent9: something is a kind of a frowning and it is a gaur. sent10: there is something such that it does assail bronze. sent11: there exists something such that it is a kind of a hardbacked. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a gaur and it is cementitious is not correct then the hogfish is leaden. sent13: the fact that the hogfish is a frowning and it is a gaur does not hold if something is a hardbacked. sent14: the liturgist is not leaden and it is not a frowning if the hogfish does hand. sent15: that the avaram is not a frowning but it is cementitious does not hold. sent16: if the fact that the photoconductivity is not leaden is right that the liturgist is not a kind of a hands and is not leaden is not right. sent17: the fact that the liturgist is a hands that is not leaden does not hold if the avaram is cementitious. sent18: that the avaram is leaden and is a kind of a frowning is incorrect if there exists something such that it assails bronze. sent19: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a frowning the avaram does assail bronze. sent20: that the avaram is not a hands and does not assail bronze does not hold. sent21: if there is something such that the fact that it is a frowning and it is a gaur does not hold then that the avaram assails bronze hold. sent22: something is cementitious. sent23: that that the liturgist does not assail bronze and is leaden hold is not true. sent24: if the avaram is cementitious that the liturgist is not a hands and is leaden is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the avaram is cementitious.; sent11 & sent13 -> int1: that the hogfish is a frowning and a gaur is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is both a frowning and a gaur is not correct.; int2 & sent21 -> int3: the avaram assails bronze.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: the avaram is a kind of cementitious thing that does assail bronze.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is cementitious thing that does assail bronze.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the photoconductivity is not leaden.; sent16 & int6 -> int7: that the liturgist is not a hands and it is not leaden does not hold.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that if the avaram is cementitious then the fact that the liturgist is not a hands and is not leaden is false is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the photoconductivity is non-cementitious and non-abomasal is not right. sent2: the fact that the liturgist is a kind of a hands but it is not leaden is not correct. sent3: there is something such that the fact that it is caloric and it is archidiaconal does not hold. sent4: if the photoconductivity is not leaden then the fact that the liturgist is a hands that is not leaden is incorrect. sent5: there is something such that it is cementitious and it hands. sent6: if something is cementitious and it assails bronze the photoconductivity is not leaden. sent7: the exonuclease is not aeromedical. sent8: the hogfish is a rough. sent9: something is a kind of a frowning and it is a gaur. sent10: there is something such that it does assail bronze. sent11: there exists something such that it is a kind of a hardbacked. sent12: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a gaur and it is cementitious is not correct then the hogfish is leaden. sent13: the fact that the hogfish is a frowning and it is a gaur does not hold if something is a hardbacked. sent14: the liturgist is not leaden and it is not a frowning if the hogfish does hand. sent15: that the avaram is not a frowning but it is cementitious does not hold. sent16: if the fact that the photoconductivity is not leaden is right that the liturgist is not a kind of a hands and is not leaden is not right. sent17: the fact that the liturgist is a hands that is not leaden does not hold if the avaram is cementitious. sent18: that the avaram is leaden and is a kind of a frowning is incorrect if there exists something such that it assails bronze. sent19: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a frowning the avaram does assail bronze. sent20: that the avaram is not a hands and does not assail bronze does not hold. sent21: if there is something such that the fact that it is a frowning and it is a gaur does not hold then that the avaram assails bronze hold. sent22: something is cementitious. sent23: that that the liturgist does not assail bronze and is leaden hold is not true. sent24: if the avaram is cementitious that the liturgist is not a hands and is leaden is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the avaram is cementitious.; sent11 & sent13 -> int1: that the hogfish is a frowning and a gaur is not right.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is both a frowning and a gaur is not correct.; int2 & sent21 -> int3: the avaram assails bronze.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: the avaram is a kind of cementitious thing that does assail bronze.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is cementitious thing that does assail bronze.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the photoconductivity is not leaden.; sent16 & int6 -> int7: that the liturgist is not a hands and it is not leaden does not hold.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__