the fact that either the carillon is not a skin-dive or it is a Aconcagua or both is false.
sent1: there exists something such that it does not diminish. sent2: something does stigmatize INLA. sent3: something is not non-citric if either it is non-citric or it is not a resort or both. sent4: the carillon is not a skin-dive if the U is a resort that excises Buffalo. sent5: if something diminishes then the fact that it does not skin-dive or it is a kind of a Aconcagua or both does not hold. sent6: the carillon is not anasarcous if the fact that the individualist is a Aconcagua and/or it is a superposition does not hold. sent7: the U is nonassociative and excises Buffalo. sent8: if that the brickbat does resort and/or it does stigmatize INLA is not right the fact that the carillon is not a Aconcagua is not false. sent9: the U is a kind of a superposition. sent10: there is something such that it is a superposition. sent11: the carillon does excise Buffalo and is not a Aconcagua. sent12: the brickbat stigmatizes INLA. sent13: The INLA stigmatizes brickbat. sent14: the U is anasarcous. sent15: the individualist is not citric. sent16: the adultery is both a complicity and citric. sent17: something stigmatizes INLA and is anasarcous. sent18: the fact that the individualist is a kind of a superposition and is anasarcous is not correct if there exists something such that it is citric. sent19: if there exists something such that it does not diminish then the fact that the individualist is a superposition and/or it is non-anasarcous is incorrect. sent20: the U is a kind of a skin-dive and it is nonassociative. sent21: something is a skin-dive. sent22: the brickbat is not citric and/or does excise Buffalo. sent23: the U resorts if there exists something such that it stigmatizes INLA and is not citric. sent24: the fact that the brickbat is not citric if that the fact that the individualist is a superposition and/or is non-anasarcous is not wrong is incorrect is not incorrect.
sent1 & sent19 -> int1: that the individualist is a superposition and/or not anasarcous does not hold.; int1 & sent24 -> int2: the brickbat is not citric.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the brickbat does stigmatize INLA but it is not citric.; int3 -> int4: something does stigmatize INLA and is not citric.; int4 & sent23 -> int5: the U is a resort.; sent7 -> int6: the U excises Buffalo.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the U is a resort and excises Buffalo.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: the carillon is not a skin-dive.; int8 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the carillon does not skin-dive and/or it is a Aconcagua is incorrect.
sent5 -> int9: the fact that the carillon is not a skin-dive and/or it is a Aconcagua is wrong if it diminishes.; sent3 -> int10: the brickbat is citric if it is not citric or not a resort or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that either the carillon is not a skin-dive or it is a Aconcagua or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does not diminish. sent2: something does stigmatize INLA. sent3: something is not non-citric if either it is non-citric or it is not a resort or both. sent4: the carillon is not a skin-dive if the U is a resort that excises Buffalo. sent5: if something diminishes then the fact that it does not skin-dive or it is a kind of a Aconcagua or both does not hold. sent6: the carillon is not anasarcous if the fact that the individualist is a Aconcagua and/or it is a superposition does not hold. sent7: the U is nonassociative and excises Buffalo. sent8: if that the brickbat does resort and/or it does stigmatize INLA is not right the fact that the carillon is not a Aconcagua is not false. sent9: the U is a kind of a superposition. sent10: there is something such that it is a superposition. sent11: the carillon does excise Buffalo and is not a Aconcagua. sent12: the brickbat stigmatizes INLA. sent13: The INLA stigmatizes brickbat. sent14: the U is anasarcous. sent15: the individualist is not citric. sent16: the adultery is both a complicity and citric. sent17: something stigmatizes INLA and is anasarcous. sent18: the fact that the individualist is a kind of a superposition and is anasarcous is not correct if there exists something such that it is citric. sent19: if there exists something such that it does not diminish then the fact that the individualist is a superposition and/or it is non-anasarcous is incorrect. sent20: the U is a kind of a skin-dive and it is nonassociative. sent21: something is a skin-dive. sent22: the brickbat is not citric and/or does excise Buffalo. sent23: the U resorts if there exists something such that it stigmatizes INLA and is not citric. sent24: the fact that the brickbat is not citric if that the fact that the individualist is a superposition and/or is non-anasarcous is not wrong is incorrect is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent19 -> int1: that the individualist is a superposition and/or not anasarcous does not hold.; int1 & sent24 -> int2: the brickbat is not citric.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the brickbat does stigmatize INLA but it is not citric.; int3 -> int4: something does stigmatize INLA and is not citric.; int4 & sent23 -> int5: the U is a resort.; sent7 -> int6: the U excises Buffalo.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the U is a resort and excises Buffalo.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: the carillon is not a skin-dive.; int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__