that the tribologist does not frown or does follow or both is not true.
sent1: if something does not approbate booklouse then that it is not a kind of a frowning or it follows or both is false. sent2: everything is either not anabiotic or not a Pluviose or both. sent3: the tribologist is not fortunate. sent4: the tribologist either is a frowning or follows or both. sent5: that the tribologist is not an antiknock and is a kind of a frowning is incorrect. sent6: if that the nurser is not a Massawa is not wrong that it is a rope-a-dope and does cloy tribologist is false. sent7: the depth does not approbate booklouse. sent8: if there is something such that that it does frown and is not erect does not hold then the tribologist is erect. sent9: the predictor does not approbate anoa and is not an aphrodisiac if it is a Domingo. sent10: the fact that the tribologist is not leprous hold. sent11: the tribologist does not underquote Bessel but it is a rope-a-dope. sent12: if something is reactive and approbates booklouse the pass-through does not follow. sent13: that the tribologist does not underquote Bessel but it is a kind of a rope-a-dope is wrong if it does not follow. sent14: something approbates booklouse if it does not approbate anoa and is non-aphrodisiac. sent15: the predictor is a Domingo. sent16: the fact that the tribologist is a rope-a-dope and it is diurnal does not hold. sent17: the fact that something is not reactive and is a kind of an aphrodisiac is false if it does not approbate anoa. sent18: if something is not anabiotic and/or it is not a Pluviose it is a kind of a Domingo. sent19: if that the copybook is unreactive and an aphrodisiac is wrong then the tribologist does not approbate booklouse. sent20: that that the copybook is a frowning but it is not erect is not correct hold if something does not follow. sent21: the predictor is reactive. sent22: that the reach is an ensemble and is a question is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tribologist does not follow.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tribologist does not underquote Bessel but it is a kind of a rope-a-dope does not hold.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the tribologist does follow is right.; int3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the tribologist is not a kind of a frowning and/or it follows is wrong.
sent1 -> int4: if the tribologist does not approbate booklouse the fact that it is not a kind of a frowning or it follows or both is false.; sent17 -> int5: if the copybook does not approbate anoa the fact that it is unreactive and it is an aphrodisiac is false.; sent18 -> int6: that the pass-through is not a Domingo is not right if it is not anabiotic or it is not a kind of a Pluviose or both.; sent2 -> int7: the pass-through is not anabiotic or it is not a Pluviose or both.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the pass-through is a Domingo is true.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is a kind of a Domingo.;
$hypothesis$ = that the tribologist does not frown or does follow or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not approbate booklouse then that it is not a kind of a frowning or it follows or both is false. sent2: everything is either not anabiotic or not a Pluviose or both. sent3: the tribologist is not fortunate. sent4: the tribologist either is a frowning or follows or both. sent5: that the tribologist is not an antiknock and is a kind of a frowning is incorrect. sent6: if that the nurser is not a Massawa is not wrong that it is a rope-a-dope and does cloy tribologist is false. sent7: the depth does not approbate booklouse. sent8: if there is something such that that it does frown and is not erect does not hold then the tribologist is erect. sent9: the predictor does not approbate anoa and is not an aphrodisiac if it is a Domingo. sent10: the fact that the tribologist is not leprous hold. sent11: the tribologist does not underquote Bessel but it is a rope-a-dope. sent12: if something is reactive and approbates booklouse the pass-through does not follow. sent13: that the tribologist does not underquote Bessel but it is a kind of a rope-a-dope is wrong if it does not follow. sent14: something approbates booklouse if it does not approbate anoa and is non-aphrodisiac. sent15: the predictor is a Domingo. sent16: the fact that the tribologist is a rope-a-dope and it is diurnal does not hold. sent17: the fact that something is not reactive and is a kind of an aphrodisiac is false if it does not approbate anoa. sent18: if something is not anabiotic and/or it is not a Pluviose it is a kind of a Domingo. sent19: if that the copybook is unreactive and an aphrodisiac is wrong then the tribologist does not approbate booklouse. sent20: that that the copybook is a frowning but it is not erect is not correct hold if something does not follow. sent21: the predictor is reactive. sent22: that the reach is an ensemble and is a question is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tribologist does not follow.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tribologist does not underquote Bessel but it is a kind of a rope-a-dope does not hold.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the tribologist does follow is right.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__