the cripple is an ostentation but it is generous.
sent1: the cripple is a Esperanto and is a kind of a sponge. sent2: the fact that the man-on-a-horse does not hyperventilate is correct if something does gin deferral and/or it does stare soapstone. sent3: the cripple stares soapstone. sent4: the fact that something is multivalent and does not disown smilo is wrong if it is a kind of a peroneus. sent5: that the tribadism is morphologic and is not a kind of a Esperanto is wrong if the fact that the earthquake is a sponge is correct. sent6: that the dragonfly is not a kind of a drum and is not a kind of a claret is false. sent7: something is an ostentation and is not ungenerous if it is not a Esperanto. sent8: if the fact that the dragonfly does not drum and it is not a claret does not hold then the saxophonist stares soapstone. sent9: the earthquake is non-physicochemical a Alopius if the flutist is a bottle-grass. sent10: if that something is a Esperanto and a Alopius is not true then it is not a kind of a Esperanto. sent11: something does sponge if it is a kind of non-physicochemical thing that is a Alopius. sent12: that something is both an ostentation and not ungenerous is not correct if it is a Esperanto. sent13: the fact that the earthquake is not a sponge is true if that the flutist does sponge and it is physicochemical is not right. sent14: if that the cripple is a kind of a Esperanto is not false that it is an ostentation and is ungenerous is wrong.
sent12 -> int1: the fact that the cripple is a kind of an ostentation but it is not ungenerous is false if it is a Esperanto.; sent1 -> int2: the cripple is a Esperanto.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
the cripple is an ostentation but it is not ungenerous.
sent7 -> int3: the cripple is an ostentation and is not ungenerous if it is not a Esperanto.; sent10 -> int4: the cripple is not a Esperanto if the fact that it is a Esperanto and it is a Alopius is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the cripple is an ostentation but it is generous. ; $context$ = sent1: the cripple is a Esperanto and is a kind of a sponge. sent2: the fact that the man-on-a-horse does not hyperventilate is correct if something does gin deferral and/or it does stare soapstone. sent3: the cripple stares soapstone. sent4: the fact that something is multivalent and does not disown smilo is wrong if it is a kind of a peroneus. sent5: that the tribadism is morphologic and is not a kind of a Esperanto is wrong if the fact that the earthquake is a sponge is correct. sent6: that the dragonfly is not a kind of a drum and is not a kind of a claret is false. sent7: something is an ostentation and is not ungenerous if it is not a Esperanto. sent8: if the fact that the dragonfly does not drum and it is not a claret does not hold then the saxophonist stares soapstone. sent9: the earthquake is non-physicochemical a Alopius if the flutist is a bottle-grass. sent10: if that something is a Esperanto and a Alopius is not true then it is not a kind of a Esperanto. sent11: something does sponge if it is a kind of non-physicochemical thing that is a Alopius. sent12: that something is both an ostentation and not ungenerous is not correct if it is a Esperanto. sent13: the fact that the earthquake is not a sponge is true if that the flutist does sponge and it is physicochemical is not right. sent14: if that the cripple is a kind of a Esperanto is not false that it is an ostentation and is ungenerous is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: the fact that the cripple is a kind of an ostentation but it is not ungenerous is false if it is a Esperanto.; sent1 -> int2: the cripple is a Esperanto.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__