that the Nonconformist is not a squall but a bedded is not correct.
sent1: something is a bedded if that it directs interlude and is not a kind of a delusion is not correct. sent2: something is cross-modal and a delusion if it does not diminish taproot. sent3: the doxazosin is not an ogress. sent4: if the fact that something is cross-modal and does not diminish taproot does not hold then it is not cross-modal. sent5: if the climatologist does not direct interlude that the Nonconformist does direct interlude and is not a delusion is not right. sent6: everything is not a squall. sent7: if that something is both not an announcement and an ogress does not hold then it is cross-modal. sent8: something does direct interlude if it is cross-modal. sent9: the climatologist does not direct interlude if the myelinization is both not an announcement and an ogress. sent10: if the myelinization is not an ogress then it is cross-modal. sent11: if there exists something such that it is monotonic the fact that the myelinization is a kind of cross-modal thing that does not diminish taproot does not hold. sent12: there is something such that it is monotonic.
sent7 -> int1: that the myelinization is cross-modal is right if that it is both not an announcement and an ogress is incorrect.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the myelinization is not an announcement but it is an ogress does not hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the myelinization is cross-modal.; sent4 -> int3: if the fact that the myelinization is cross-modal but it does not diminish taproot does not hold it is not cross-modal.; sent12 & sent11 -> int4: the fact that the myelinization is cross-modal but it does not diminish taproot is incorrect.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the myelinization is not cross-modal.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the myelinization is not an announcement but an ogress.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the climatologist does not direct interlude.; int8 & sent5 -> int9: the fact that the Nonconformist does direct interlude and is not a delusion is wrong.; sent1 -> int10: if that that the Nonconformist directs interlude but it is not a delusion is not false is false the fact that it beds is true.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the Nonconformist is a bedded.; sent6 -> int12: the Nonconformist does not squall.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis;
that the fact that the Nonconformist does not squall but it is a bedded is not correct is not wrong.
sent2 -> int13: the fact that the climatologist is a kind of cross-modal a delusion hold if it does not diminish taproot.; sent8 -> int14: if that the Nonconformist is cross-modal is not false then that it does direct interlude is right.;
$hypothesis$ = that the Nonconformist is not a squall but a bedded is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a bedded if that it directs interlude and is not a kind of a delusion is not correct. sent2: something is cross-modal and a delusion if it does not diminish taproot. sent3: the doxazosin is not an ogress. sent4: if the fact that something is cross-modal and does not diminish taproot does not hold then it is not cross-modal. sent5: if the climatologist does not direct interlude that the Nonconformist does direct interlude and is not a delusion is not right. sent6: everything is not a squall. sent7: if that something is both not an announcement and an ogress does not hold then it is cross-modal. sent8: something does direct interlude if it is cross-modal. sent9: the climatologist does not direct interlude if the myelinization is both not an announcement and an ogress. sent10: if the myelinization is not an ogress then it is cross-modal. sent11: if there exists something such that it is monotonic the fact that the myelinization is a kind of cross-modal thing that does not diminish taproot does not hold. sent12: there is something such that it is monotonic. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: that the myelinization is cross-modal is right if that it is both not an announcement and an ogress is incorrect.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the myelinization is not an announcement but it is an ogress does not hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the myelinization is cross-modal.; sent4 -> int3: if the fact that the myelinization is cross-modal but it does not diminish taproot does not hold it is not cross-modal.; sent12 & sent11 -> int4: the fact that the myelinization is cross-modal but it does not diminish taproot is incorrect.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the myelinization is not cross-modal.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the myelinization is not an announcement but an ogress.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the climatologist does not direct interlude.; int8 & sent5 -> int9: the fact that the Nonconformist does direct interlude and is not a delusion is wrong.; sent1 -> int10: if that that the Nonconformist directs interlude but it is not a delusion is not false is false the fact that it beds is true.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the Nonconformist is a bedded.; sent6 -> int12: the Nonconformist does not squall.; int11 & int12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__