that there is something such that if it clamors sprawler then it does not tribulate explanation and is not extrinsic does not hold.
sent1: that something is not extrinsic if it is unargumentative is right. sent2: the vanity is a legislature if it monopolizes habitat. sent3: if the shampoo clamors sprawler then it is not extrinsic. sent4: if the habitat is responsive then it is not extrinsic. sent5: if the shampoo clamors sprawler then it is a legislature. sent6: there is something such that if it does clamor sprawler it does tribulate explanation and it is not extrinsic. sent7: the shampoo is not a kind of a sheepwalk and is not a expectoration. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a ornithine then it is not a kind of a mobile. sent9: if the shampoo majors then it announces freshener and it is not fibrocalcific. sent10: something tribulates explanation but it is not extrinsic if it is unargumentative. sent11: that if the shampoo does monopolize fixer-upper then that the shampoo is a kind of non-directed thing that does not tribulate explanation is true is not incorrect. sent12: if something is a winnow then it does not clamor sprawler and it does not clamor heading. sent13: something that is a legislature is unargumentative. sent14: the shampoo is not extrinsic. sent15: something is both not a sweat and not a anisotropy if it is a Shylock. sent16: the shampoo is not a kind of a expectoration and it is not a imperativeness if it is extrinsic. sent17: something does not tribulate explanation and is not extrinsic if it is unargumentative. sent18: the shampoo does not delineate. sent19: the fact that the Lebanese is extrinsic but it does not tribulate explanation does not hold. sent20: the shampoo does tribulate explanation but it is not extrinsic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shampoo does clamor sprawler.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the shampoo is a legislature.; sent13 -> int2: that the shampoo is not argumentative is not incorrect if the fact that it is a legislature hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the shampoo is unargumentative is right.; sent17 -> int4: that the shampoo does not tribulate explanation and it is not extrinsic is right if it is unargumentative.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the shampoo does not tribulate explanation and is not extrinsic.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the shampoo does not tribulate explanation and it is not extrinsic if the fact that it does clamor sprawler is not incorrect.; int6 -> hypothesis;
if the lobule is a winnow it does not clamor sprawler and it does not clamor heading.
sent12 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it clamors sprawler then it does not tribulate explanation and is not extrinsic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not extrinsic if it is unargumentative is right. sent2: the vanity is a legislature if it monopolizes habitat. sent3: if the shampoo clamors sprawler then it is not extrinsic. sent4: if the habitat is responsive then it is not extrinsic. sent5: if the shampoo clamors sprawler then it is a legislature. sent6: there is something such that if it does clamor sprawler it does tribulate explanation and it is not extrinsic. sent7: the shampoo is not a kind of a sheepwalk and is not a expectoration. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a ornithine then it is not a kind of a mobile. sent9: if the shampoo majors then it announces freshener and it is not fibrocalcific. sent10: something tribulates explanation but it is not extrinsic if it is unargumentative. sent11: that if the shampoo does monopolize fixer-upper then that the shampoo is a kind of non-directed thing that does not tribulate explanation is true is not incorrect. sent12: if something is a winnow then it does not clamor sprawler and it does not clamor heading. sent13: something that is a legislature is unargumentative. sent14: the shampoo is not extrinsic. sent15: something is both not a sweat and not a anisotropy if it is a Shylock. sent16: the shampoo is not a kind of a expectoration and it is not a imperativeness if it is extrinsic. sent17: something does not tribulate explanation and is not extrinsic if it is unargumentative. sent18: the shampoo does not delineate. sent19: the fact that the Lebanese is extrinsic but it does not tribulate explanation does not hold. sent20: the shampoo does tribulate explanation but it is not extrinsic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shampoo does clamor sprawler.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the shampoo is a legislature.; sent13 -> int2: that the shampoo is not argumentative is not incorrect if the fact that it is a legislature hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the shampoo is unargumentative is right.; sent17 -> int4: that the shampoo does not tribulate explanation and it is not extrinsic is right if it is unargumentative.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the shampoo does not tribulate explanation and is not extrinsic.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the shampoo does not tribulate explanation and it is not extrinsic if the fact that it does clamor sprawler is not incorrect.; int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__