the spur is not a sial.
sent1: if the admixture is bignoniaceous the fact that the antitoxin is a completeness but it is not a kind of a transitive is not true. sent2: the spur is a sial if the mirid bankrupts COMINT. sent3: if that something is lacrimatory but it is not a kind of a crime is incorrect it is bignoniaceous. sent4: that the Dutchman's-pipe is not a kind of a well but it is a crime does not hold. sent5: if the aggravator does bankrupt stopover the mirid does bankrupt COMINT. sent6: if the fact that the Dutchman's-pipe is a blight is not incorrect that the admixture is lacrimatory and is not a kind of a crime is false. sent7: the aggravator does bankrupt stopover if the fact that that the antitoxin is both a completeness and not transitive is not false is false. sent8: if the Dutchman's-pipe is a Hemitripterus it is a blight. sent9: the fact that the Dutchman's-pipe is not a well and it is not a kind of a Hemitripterus is incorrect. sent10: if that the Dutchman's-pipe is non-well and is not a Hemitripterus is wrong it is a blight.
sent10 & sent9 -> int1: the Dutchman's-pipe is a kind of a blight.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the admixture is lacrimatory but it is not a crime hold is not right.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the admixture is lacrimatory but it is not a crime is not right then it is bignoniaceous.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the admixture is bignoniaceous.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that the antitoxin is a completeness but it is not transitive is false.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the aggravator does bankrupt stopover.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the mirid does bankrupt COMINT.; int7 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the spur is not a sial. ; $context$ = sent1: if the admixture is bignoniaceous the fact that the antitoxin is a completeness but it is not a kind of a transitive is not true. sent2: the spur is a sial if the mirid bankrupts COMINT. sent3: if that something is lacrimatory but it is not a kind of a crime is incorrect it is bignoniaceous. sent4: that the Dutchman's-pipe is not a kind of a well but it is a crime does not hold. sent5: if the aggravator does bankrupt stopover the mirid does bankrupt COMINT. sent6: if the fact that the Dutchman's-pipe is a blight is not incorrect that the admixture is lacrimatory and is not a kind of a crime is false. sent7: the aggravator does bankrupt stopover if the fact that that the antitoxin is both a completeness and not transitive is not false is false. sent8: if the Dutchman's-pipe is a Hemitripterus it is a blight. sent9: the fact that the Dutchman's-pipe is not a well and it is not a kind of a Hemitripterus is incorrect. sent10: if that the Dutchman's-pipe is non-well and is not a Hemitripterus is wrong it is a blight. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent9 -> int1: the Dutchman's-pipe is a kind of a blight.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the admixture is lacrimatory but it is not a crime hold is not right.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the admixture is lacrimatory but it is not a crime is not right then it is bignoniaceous.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the admixture is bignoniaceous.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that the antitoxin is a completeness but it is not transitive is false.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the aggravator does bankrupt stopover.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the mirid does bankrupt COMINT.; int7 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__