the fact that the hypersecretion is not a eburnation and it is not a telencephalon does not hold.
sent1: the hypersecretion is not a kind of a eburnation if the cyborg is a kind of a Sauk. sent2: if the chlorothiazide does not stub stonework the fact that the cyborg does curb broadsword but it is non-anginal does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is awful and it is not a screen does not hold. sent4: the teal is not a kind of a telencephalon and does not interpose postposition if it is not a Sauk. sent5: the arianist is not a kind of a Sauk and is a kind of a eburnation if it is not anginal. sent6: the arianist is both not radiotelephonic and not a telencephalon. sent7: the arianist is not younger and it is not radiotelephonic. sent8: the hypersecretion is not a eburnation. sent9: if the arianist is non-younger thing that is not radiotelephonic then the cyborg is a Sauk. sent10: if the cyborg is a Sauk the fact that the hypersecretion is not a eburnation and it is not a kind of a telencephalon is not incorrect. sent11: the cyborg is a telencephalon. sent12: the arianist is not radiotelephonic. sent13: the contact is a eburnation. sent14: if the autacoid does interpose mistreatment that it is not bacteroidal and it is a Gabonese is true. sent15: if that the cyborg does curb broadsword but it is not anginal does not hold the arianist is not anginal. sent16: if the arianist is not younger but it is radiotelephonic the fact that the cyborg is a Sauk is not incorrect.
sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the cyborg is a kind of a Sauk.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the hypersecretion is not a eburnation and not a telencephalon is wrong.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the hypersecretion is not a eburnation and it is not a telencephalon does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the hypersecretion is not a kind of a eburnation if the cyborg is a kind of a Sauk. sent2: if the chlorothiazide does not stub stonework the fact that the cyborg does curb broadsword but it is non-anginal does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is awful and it is not a screen does not hold. sent4: the teal is not a kind of a telencephalon and does not interpose postposition if it is not a Sauk. sent5: the arianist is not a kind of a Sauk and is a kind of a eburnation if it is not anginal. sent6: the arianist is both not radiotelephonic and not a telencephalon. sent7: the arianist is not younger and it is not radiotelephonic. sent8: the hypersecretion is not a eburnation. sent9: if the arianist is non-younger thing that is not radiotelephonic then the cyborg is a Sauk. sent10: if the cyborg is a Sauk the fact that the hypersecretion is not a eburnation and it is not a kind of a telencephalon is not incorrect. sent11: the cyborg is a telencephalon. sent12: the arianist is not radiotelephonic. sent13: the contact is a eburnation. sent14: if the autacoid does interpose mistreatment that it is not bacteroidal and it is a Gabonese is true. sent15: if that the cyborg does curb broadsword but it is not anginal does not hold the arianist is not anginal. sent16: if the arianist is not younger but it is radiotelephonic the fact that the cyborg is a Sauk is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the cyborg is a kind of a Sauk.; sent10 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__