the electrophorus is not a kind of a obstipation.
sent1: the farmer is not a tremolite and not a barbican. sent2: the crock is bathyal. sent3: that the crock is not a contraction and not benedictory is incorrect if it bathes samosa. sent4: the electrophorus loves if that it is not a barbican and it is not a contraction does not hold. sent5: the anatotitan is a contraction if that it is a kind of non-benedictory thing that is not a barbican does not hold. sent6: that the electrophorus is a kind of a contraction hold if the fact that it is not bathyal and it is peaty does not hold. sent7: the electrophorus is not oropharyngeal. sent8: if the poltergeist is not a barbican then the electrophorus is peaty and is not bathyal. sent9: the fact that the anatotitan is not benedictory and it is not a barbican is not right if the poltergeist is peaty. sent10: the crock is not bathyal if the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal and it does not love. sent11: the anatotitan is cellular if the fact that it is benedictory is correct. sent12: the crock is not an exit and not a barbican. sent13: the fact that the electrophorus does not bathe samosa and is a kind of a contraction is not right if the anatotitan is a kind of a contraction. sent14: if that something is not a kind of a contraction and it is not a obstipation is false then it is a barbican. sent15: the fact that something bathes samosa if it does commercialize foolscap is not false. sent16: if the fact that the electrophorus does not bathe samosa but it is a contraction is incorrect it is a kind of a obstipation. sent17: that the electrophorus is not a obstipation and is bathyal is false. sent18: if the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal it is bathyal. sent19: something is not a obstipation if it is both peaty and not bathyal. sent20: something is peaty if that it is non-oropharyngeal thing that does not love is false. sent21: that the anatotitan does not bathe samosa and is a kind of a contraction is incorrect. sent22: that the anatotitan is not a groom but it is a obstipation is not correct. sent23: the crock is not oropharyngeal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poltergeist is both non-oropharyngeal and not a loved.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the crock is not bathyal.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal and it does not love is false.; sent20 -> int4: if the fact that the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal and it is not a loved does not hold it is peaty.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the poltergeist is peaty hold.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: that the anatotitan is not benedictory and it is not a barbican is incorrect.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the anatotitan is a contraction.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the fact that the fact that the electrophorus does not bathe samosa and is a contraction is right is not correct.; int8 & sent16 -> hypothesis;
the electrophorus is not a obstipation.
sent19 -> int9: the electrophorus is not a kind of a obstipation if it is peaty and is not bathyal.; sent15 -> int10: the crock does bathe samosa if it commercializes foolscap.;
$hypothesis$ = the electrophorus is not a kind of a obstipation. ; $context$ = sent1: the farmer is not a tremolite and not a barbican. sent2: the crock is bathyal. sent3: that the crock is not a contraction and not benedictory is incorrect if it bathes samosa. sent4: the electrophorus loves if that it is not a barbican and it is not a contraction does not hold. sent5: the anatotitan is a contraction if that it is a kind of non-benedictory thing that is not a barbican does not hold. sent6: that the electrophorus is a kind of a contraction hold if the fact that it is not bathyal and it is peaty does not hold. sent7: the electrophorus is not oropharyngeal. sent8: if the poltergeist is not a barbican then the electrophorus is peaty and is not bathyal. sent9: the fact that the anatotitan is not benedictory and it is not a barbican is not right if the poltergeist is peaty. sent10: the crock is not bathyal if the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal and it does not love. sent11: the anatotitan is cellular if the fact that it is benedictory is correct. sent12: the crock is not an exit and not a barbican. sent13: the fact that the electrophorus does not bathe samosa and is a kind of a contraction is not right if the anatotitan is a kind of a contraction. sent14: if that something is not a kind of a contraction and it is not a obstipation is false then it is a barbican. sent15: the fact that something bathes samosa if it does commercialize foolscap is not false. sent16: if the fact that the electrophorus does not bathe samosa but it is a contraction is incorrect it is a kind of a obstipation. sent17: that the electrophorus is not a obstipation and is bathyal is false. sent18: if the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal it is bathyal. sent19: something is not a obstipation if it is both peaty and not bathyal. sent20: something is peaty if that it is non-oropharyngeal thing that does not love is false. sent21: that the anatotitan does not bathe samosa and is a kind of a contraction is incorrect. sent22: that the anatotitan is not a groom but it is a obstipation is not correct. sent23: the crock is not oropharyngeal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poltergeist is both non-oropharyngeal and not a loved.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the crock is not bathyal.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal and it does not love is false.; sent20 -> int4: if the fact that the poltergeist is not oropharyngeal and it is not a loved does not hold it is peaty.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the poltergeist is peaty hold.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: that the anatotitan is not benedictory and it is not a barbican is incorrect.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the anatotitan is a contraction.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the fact that the fact that the electrophorus does not bathe samosa and is a contraction is right is not correct.; int8 & sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__