that if the econometrician comforts econometrician that the action does not intrude lyceum and it is not a kind of a bolt is not right does not hold.
sent1: the econometrician does not comfort econometrician if the cush-cush reinforces action. sent2: if the cush-cush does quirk and/or it reinforces action the econometrician does not comfort econometrician. sent3: if the econometrician comforts econometrician then the fact that the action does not intrude lyceum and does bolt is not right. sent4: if the econometrician does comfort econometrician then that the action intrudes lyceum but it is not a bolt does not hold. sent5: the cush-cush does not comfort econometrician. sent6: the action does not intrude lyceum and does not bolt. sent7: if the econometrician does comfort econometrician and/or it does intrude lyceum the fact that the enlarger is not a kind of a quirk hold. sent8: the cush-cush quirks if the enlarger does intrude lyceum. sent9: if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum that the action does not intrude lyceum and it does not bolt does not hold. sent10: the action does not intrude lyceum and it is not a bolt if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum. sent11: the fact that the action does intrude lyceum but it does not bolt is incorrect if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum. sent12: the fact that the action does intrude lyceum but it is not a bolt is not true. sent13: if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum that the action does not intrude lyceum and bolts is incorrect. sent14: that the action does not intrude lyceum but it does bolt is not true. sent15: the fact that the enlarger reinforces action does not hold. sent16: the action does not intrude lyceum and it does not bolt if the econometrician comforts econometrician.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the econometrician comforts econometrician.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the enlarger intrudes lyceum.; sent8 & assump2 -> int1: the cush-cush quirks.; int1 -> int2: the cush-cush either is a quirk or does reinforce action or both.; sent2 & int2 -> int3: the econometrician does not comfort econometrician.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the enlarger does not intrude lyceum.; sent9 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the action does not intrude lyceum and is not a bolt is not correct.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that if the econometrician comforts econometrician that the action does not intrude lyceum and it is not a kind of a bolt is not right does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the econometrician does not comfort econometrician if the cush-cush reinforces action. sent2: if the cush-cush does quirk and/or it reinforces action the econometrician does not comfort econometrician. sent3: if the econometrician comforts econometrician then the fact that the action does not intrude lyceum and does bolt is not right. sent4: if the econometrician does comfort econometrician then that the action intrudes lyceum but it is not a bolt does not hold. sent5: the cush-cush does not comfort econometrician. sent6: the action does not intrude lyceum and does not bolt. sent7: if the econometrician does comfort econometrician and/or it does intrude lyceum the fact that the enlarger is not a kind of a quirk hold. sent8: the cush-cush quirks if the enlarger does intrude lyceum. sent9: if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum that the action does not intrude lyceum and it does not bolt does not hold. sent10: the action does not intrude lyceum and it is not a bolt if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum. sent11: the fact that the action does intrude lyceum but it does not bolt is incorrect if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum. sent12: the fact that the action does intrude lyceum but it is not a bolt is not true. sent13: if the enlarger does not intrude lyceum that the action does not intrude lyceum and bolts is incorrect. sent14: that the action does not intrude lyceum but it does bolt is not true. sent15: the fact that the enlarger reinforces action does not hold. sent16: the action does not intrude lyceum and it does not bolt if the econometrician comforts econometrician. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the econometrician comforts econometrician.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the enlarger intrudes lyceum.; sent8 & assump2 -> int1: the cush-cush quirks.; int1 -> int2: the cush-cush either is a quirk or does reinforce action or both.; sent2 & int2 -> int3: the econometrician does not comfort econometrician.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the enlarger does not intrude lyceum.; sent9 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the action does not intrude lyceum and is not a bolt is not correct.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__