the fact that the papaw does not underquote racquetball is true.
sent1: that the radiogram is not a kind of a zircon but it is a kind of a Perodicticus is not true. sent2: that something temporizes and it is a kind of a well is not correct if it is not a kind of a repetition. sent3: if something is not a kind of a repetition then that it does not temporize and does well is wrong. sent4: the radiogram is tarsal but it is not ethnographic if the exudation is not a tarsal. sent5: the radiogram is a tarsal. sent6: the fact that the radiogram is a kind of a tarsal but it is not ethnographic is false if it is not a kind of a zircon. sent7: that the costmary is not a zircon hold if the exudation is a zircon and a repetition. sent8: if the papaw is not a repetition then the fact that it does temporize and it is not non-well does not hold. sent9: the radiogram is not a zircon. sent10: the fact that the fact that the papaw does temporize and it does well is not incorrect is incorrect. sent11: something does underquote racquetball if it is a kind of a repetition. sent12: the exudation is non-tarsal if that the papaw does not temporize and is a well is not true. sent13: that the exudation does not reduce or it is ethnographic or both is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not a Disneyland. sent14: if the exudation underquotes racquetball the fact that it is not a zircon and it is not a kind of a tarsal is not right. sent15: if the exudation is not a tarsal the radiogram is tarsal. sent16: if the fact that something does not reduce and/or it is ethnographic is incorrect it does underquote racquetball. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a Disneyland. sent18: if the papaw temporizes the exudation is not a tarsal.
sent3 -> int1: the fact that the papaw does not temporize but it does well is not correct if it is not a repetition.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the papaw is not a repetition.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the papaw does not temporize and wells is incorrect.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the exudation is not tarsal.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the radiogram is not non-tarsal but it is not ethnographic.; sent6 & sent9 -> int5: the fact that the radiogram is a tarsal but not ethnographic does not hold.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the papaw is a kind of a repetition is not wrong.; sent11 -> int8: if the papaw is a repetition it does underquote racquetball.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the costmary is not a zircon.
sent16 -> int9: if the fact that the fact that the exudation does not reduce or it is ethnographic or both hold is not true it does underquote racquetball.; sent17 & sent13 -> int10: that the exudation either does not reduce or is ethnographic or both is not true.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the exudation underquotes racquetball.; sent14 & int11 -> int12: that the exudation is not a zircon and it is not a kind of a tarsal is false.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the papaw does not underquote racquetball is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the radiogram is not a kind of a zircon but it is a kind of a Perodicticus is not true. sent2: that something temporizes and it is a kind of a well is not correct if it is not a kind of a repetition. sent3: if something is not a kind of a repetition then that it does not temporize and does well is wrong. sent4: the radiogram is tarsal but it is not ethnographic if the exudation is not a tarsal. sent5: the radiogram is a tarsal. sent6: the fact that the radiogram is a kind of a tarsal but it is not ethnographic is false if it is not a kind of a zircon. sent7: that the costmary is not a zircon hold if the exudation is a zircon and a repetition. sent8: if the papaw is not a repetition then the fact that it does temporize and it is not non-well does not hold. sent9: the radiogram is not a zircon. sent10: the fact that the fact that the papaw does temporize and it does well is not incorrect is incorrect. sent11: something does underquote racquetball if it is a kind of a repetition. sent12: the exudation is non-tarsal if that the papaw does not temporize and is a well is not true. sent13: that the exudation does not reduce or it is ethnographic or both is incorrect if there exists something such that it is not a Disneyland. sent14: if the exudation underquotes racquetball the fact that it is not a zircon and it is not a kind of a tarsal is not right. sent15: if the exudation is not a tarsal the radiogram is tarsal. sent16: if the fact that something does not reduce and/or it is ethnographic is incorrect it does underquote racquetball. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a Disneyland. sent18: if the papaw temporizes the exudation is not a tarsal. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: the fact that the papaw does not temporize but it does well is not correct if it is not a repetition.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the papaw is not a repetition.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the papaw does not temporize and wells is incorrect.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the exudation is not tarsal.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the radiogram is not non-tarsal but it is not ethnographic.; sent6 & sent9 -> int5: the fact that the radiogram is a tarsal but not ethnographic does not hold.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the papaw is a kind of a repetition is not wrong.; sent11 -> int8: if the papaw is a repetition it does underquote racquetball.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__