that the sari is Ptolemaic or it does foliate or both if the fact that the inhalation is not anastigmatic is correct is false.
sent1: the sari foliates and/or it does deduce purity if the abstraction is not an understudy. sent2: that the abstraction understudies but it is not ambitious is false. sent3: that the abstraction does not understudy and is ambitious is not right. sent4: if the inhalation is not a tektite and does not immortalize resource then the abstraction is a tektite. sent5: if that the inhalation is not anastigmatic and does not deduce purity is not right it is not a kind of an understudy. sent6: the inhalation does not understudy. sent7: something deduces purity and is foliate if it is not anastigmatic. sent8: if the inhalation is foliate and is not an understudy the fact that the sari is anastigmatic hold. sent9: the sari is Ptolemaic and/or foliate if the inhalation is anastigmatic. sent10: the inhalation deduces purity if the abstraction is Ptolemaic thing that is not anastigmatic. sent11: if the abstraction is a kind of an understudy that is not ambitious the inhalation is anastigmatic. sent12: if the sari does not deduce purity and is not ambitious then the abstraction is not non-foliate. sent13: the serin is not Ptolemaic. sent14: if that the abstraction does not understudy and it is not ambitious is wrong it does not deduce purity. sent15: the abstraction does foliate if the sari is not a kind of an understudy. sent16: the sari is not foliate if the fact that it does not deduce purity and does not understudy is wrong. sent17: the inhalation is anastigmatic if the abstraction is not an understudy and is ambitious. sent18: the inhalation is anastigmatic if the abstraction does not understudy and is unambitious. sent19: the fact that the sweat does not foliate and does not immortalize Sennenhunde hold. sent20: that the sari is Ptolemaic if the abstraction does not deduce purity is not wrong. sent21: if the abstraction is not foliate and it does not deduce purity then the sari is ambitious.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the abstraction is not an understudy and it is not ambitious.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the inhalation is anastigmatic.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the inhalation is not anastigmatic is not incorrect.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the abstraction is not an understudy and is not ambitious does not hold.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: the abstraction does not deduce purity.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: the sari is Ptolemaic.; int5 -> int6: the sari is Ptolemaic and/or it is not non-foliate.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the doeskin is foliate.
sent7 -> int7: the doeskin does deduce purity and it is foliate if it is not anastigmatic.;
$hypothesis$ = that the sari is Ptolemaic or it does foliate or both if the fact that the inhalation is not anastigmatic is correct is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the sari foliates and/or it does deduce purity if the abstraction is not an understudy. sent2: that the abstraction understudies but it is not ambitious is false. sent3: that the abstraction does not understudy and is ambitious is not right. sent4: if the inhalation is not a tektite and does not immortalize resource then the abstraction is a tektite. sent5: if that the inhalation is not anastigmatic and does not deduce purity is not right it is not a kind of an understudy. sent6: the inhalation does not understudy. sent7: something deduces purity and is foliate if it is not anastigmatic. sent8: if the inhalation is foliate and is not an understudy the fact that the sari is anastigmatic hold. sent9: the sari is Ptolemaic and/or foliate if the inhalation is anastigmatic. sent10: the inhalation deduces purity if the abstraction is Ptolemaic thing that is not anastigmatic. sent11: if the abstraction is a kind of an understudy that is not ambitious the inhalation is anastigmatic. sent12: if the sari does not deduce purity and is not ambitious then the abstraction is not non-foliate. sent13: the serin is not Ptolemaic. sent14: if that the abstraction does not understudy and it is not ambitious is wrong it does not deduce purity. sent15: the abstraction does foliate if the sari is not a kind of an understudy. sent16: the sari is not foliate if the fact that it does not deduce purity and does not understudy is wrong. sent17: the inhalation is anastigmatic if the abstraction is not an understudy and is ambitious. sent18: the inhalation is anastigmatic if the abstraction does not understudy and is unambitious. sent19: the fact that the sweat does not foliate and does not immortalize Sennenhunde hold. sent20: that the sari is Ptolemaic if the abstraction does not deduce purity is not wrong. sent21: if the abstraction is not foliate and it does not deduce purity then the sari is ambitious. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the abstraction is not an understudy and it is not ambitious.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the inhalation is anastigmatic.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the inhalation is not anastigmatic is not incorrect.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the abstraction is not an understudy and is not ambitious does not hold.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: the abstraction does not deduce purity.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: the sari is Ptolemaic.; int5 -> int6: the sari is Ptolemaic and/or it is not non-foliate.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__