that if the substance does act the tamoxifen is not a predomination is wrong.
sent1: the parish is a Saek. sent2: the parish is intangible if the substance acts. sent3: the tamoxifen does plagiarize if the sedge does not log candidate and plagiarize. sent4: the sedge is an act. sent5: if something transaminates untouchable and does log candidate then it is not a kind of a predomination. sent6: the tamoxifen is a predomination if it does transaminate untouchable and logs candidate. sent7: the parish is a predomination. sent8: the bounder is not a predomination. sent9: if that the parish is a kind of an intangible hold the tamoxifen does transaminate untouchable. sent10: if the substance acts then the tamoxifen is a predomination. sent11: if something that transaminates untouchable does log candidate that it is a predomination is true. sent12: the fact that the sedge is an intangible is right. sent13: the substance is intangible if the parish is an act. sent14: the sedge does not plagiarize and it does not log candidate. sent15: if the sedge does not plagiarize and it does not log candidate the tamoxifen log candidate. sent16: the sedge does not log candidate.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the substance is a kind of an act is not false.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the parish is intangible.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the tamoxifen transaminates untouchable.; sent15 & sent14 -> int3: the tamoxifen logs candidate.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the tamoxifen transaminates untouchable and logs candidate.; sent5 -> int5: if the tamoxifen transaminates untouchable and logs candidate it is not a predomination.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the tamoxifen is not a kind of a predomination.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that if the substance does act the tamoxifen is not a predomination is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the parish is a Saek. sent2: the parish is intangible if the substance acts. sent3: the tamoxifen does plagiarize if the sedge does not log candidate and plagiarize. sent4: the sedge is an act. sent5: if something transaminates untouchable and does log candidate then it is not a kind of a predomination. sent6: the tamoxifen is a predomination if it does transaminate untouchable and logs candidate. sent7: the parish is a predomination. sent8: the bounder is not a predomination. sent9: if that the parish is a kind of an intangible hold the tamoxifen does transaminate untouchable. sent10: if the substance acts then the tamoxifen is a predomination. sent11: if something that transaminates untouchable does log candidate that it is a predomination is true. sent12: the fact that the sedge is an intangible is right. sent13: the substance is intangible if the parish is an act. sent14: the sedge does not plagiarize and it does not log candidate. sent15: if the sedge does not plagiarize and it does not log candidate the tamoxifen log candidate. sent16: the sedge does not log candidate. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the substance is a kind of an act is not false.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the parish is intangible.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the tamoxifen transaminates untouchable.; sent15 & sent14 -> int3: the tamoxifen logs candidate.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the tamoxifen transaminates untouchable and logs candidate.; sent5 -> int5: if the tamoxifen transaminates untouchable and logs candidate it is not a predomination.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the tamoxifen is not a kind of a predomination.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__