the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery.
sent1: the fencing does not fragment specificity if it is not sarcolemmal and it is not a kind of a aliquant. sent2: the entrecote is not a gridiron if there is something such that it is non-multiple-choice. sent3: if the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery the fencing is not sarcolemmal and is not a kind of a aliquant. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a jodhpurs or not multiple-choice or both then the entrecote is not a gridiron. sent5: that the fencing does not compartmentalize phylactery is correct. sent6: if the fact that something does not oversleep is correct then the fact that it totters and is a kind of a card does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that it is a jodhpurs and/or not multiple-choice. sent8: if something is not multiple-choice then it is not a jodhpurs. sent9: the fencing is not sarcolemmal if the fact that the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery is right. sent10: the fact that something does not oversleep if the fact that it is a D-day and a settlor is not correct is not false. sent11: there is something such that it is multiple-choice. sent12: if that the fencing is not a reflectiveness and is not a ectrodactyly is not correct then it is not aldehydic. sent13: the fencing does not fragment specificity if it is sarcolemmal thing that is not a kind of a aliquant. sent14: the fact that the fencing is not a reflectiveness and not a ectrodactyly is not right. sent15: the fact that something is a gridiron and it does fragment specificity does not hold if it is not a jodhpurs. sent16: the fencing is not sarcolemmal. sent17: if that something is a kind of a gridiron and fragments specificity is not true it does not fragment phylactery. sent18: if the fencing does not fragment specificity the entrecote is a gridiron. sent19: something is a kind of a jodhpurs or it is multiple-choice or both. sent20: the pyrograph is not a jodhpurs if there exists something such that the fact that it is multiple-choice hold. sent21: the fact that the fencing is a D-day and it is a settlor is not right if it is not aldehydic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fencing is not sarcolemmal and it is not a kind of a aliquant.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fencing does not fragment specificity.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the entrecote is a gridiron.; sent7 & sent4 -> int4: the entrecote is not a kind of a gridiron.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that it is Christian and/or it is not vibrionic.
sent11 & sent20 -> int6: the pyrograph is not a jodhpurs.;
$hypothesis$ = the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery. ; $context$ = sent1: the fencing does not fragment specificity if it is not sarcolemmal and it is not a kind of a aliquant. sent2: the entrecote is not a gridiron if there is something such that it is non-multiple-choice. sent3: if the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery the fencing is not sarcolemmal and is not a kind of a aliquant. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a jodhpurs or not multiple-choice or both then the entrecote is not a gridiron. sent5: that the fencing does not compartmentalize phylactery is correct. sent6: if the fact that something does not oversleep is correct then the fact that it totters and is a kind of a card does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that it is a jodhpurs and/or not multiple-choice. sent8: if something is not multiple-choice then it is not a jodhpurs. sent9: the fencing is not sarcolemmal if the fact that the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery is right. sent10: the fact that something does not oversleep if the fact that it is a D-day and a settlor is not correct is not false. sent11: there is something such that it is multiple-choice. sent12: if that the fencing is not a reflectiveness and is not a ectrodactyly is not correct then it is not aldehydic. sent13: the fencing does not fragment specificity if it is sarcolemmal thing that is not a kind of a aliquant. sent14: the fact that the fencing is not a reflectiveness and not a ectrodactyly is not right. sent15: the fact that something is a gridiron and it does fragment specificity does not hold if it is not a jodhpurs. sent16: the fencing is not sarcolemmal. sent17: if that something is a kind of a gridiron and fragments specificity is not true it does not fragment phylactery. sent18: if the fencing does not fragment specificity the entrecote is a gridiron. sent19: something is a kind of a jodhpurs or it is multiple-choice or both. sent20: the pyrograph is not a jodhpurs if there exists something such that the fact that it is multiple-choice hold. sent21: the fact that the fencing is a D-day and it is a settlor is not right if it is not aldehydic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the lanthanum does not fragment phylactery.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fencing is not sarcolemmal and it is not a kind of a aliquant.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fencing does not fragment specificity.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the entrecote is a gridiron.; sent7 & sent4 -> int4: the entrecote is not a kind of a gridiron.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__