that something repots Karpov is not right.
sent1: the kleptomaniac is both not a right and nonionic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not docile hold the fact that the pedant is an inevitable and it is seamless does not hold. sent3: the chalcanthite is not biflagellate. sent4: if the chalcanthite is not biflagellate the bookkeeper is not biflagellate but it does squish bookkeeper. sent5: that the pedant is a kind of an inevitable and it does squish bookkeeper does not hold. sent6: that the bookkeeper repots Karpov is not false if the chalcanthite is a propyl and it does squish bookkeeper. sent7: if something is not a call-out or it is biflagellate or both it is not a propyl. sent8: if the pedant is not inevitable then it is not a kind of a call-out. sent9: if the fact that the chalcanthite is not non-biflagellate and it is a call-out is not correct it is not a propyl. sent10: that the bookkeeper is docile is not false. sent11: that the chalcanthite is either not seamless or a propyl or both hold. sent12: the pedant is not a call-out if the fact that it is a kind of an inevitable and it is seamless is not true. sent13: the pedant is not generous. sent14: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a propyl if the pedant is not a propyl. sent15: if the fact that the chalcanthite is not a kind of a call-out and/or does squish bookkeeper is right the fact that it is not a propyl is not false. sent16: something is not docile. sent17: the pedant does not repot Karpov if that it is inevitable and it squishes bookkeeper is incorrect. sent18: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a propyl but it squishes bookkeeper if the pedant is not a kind of a propyl. sent19: the chalcanthite does not repot Karpov. sent20: the pedant is a call-out and/or it is biflagellate. sent21: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a call-out or it does squish bookkeeper or both. sent22: the bookkeeper is not a propyl. sent23: that the chalcanthite is a kind of docile a Camponotus does not hold. sent24: if something is not a gradual or it is a lipectomy or both then it does not squish oxlip. sent25: that the bookkeeper repots Karpov is not false if the chalcanthite is not a propyl and does squish bookkeeper. sent26: something is docile.
sent16 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the pedant is inevitable and it is seamless does not hold.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the pedant is not a call-out.; int2 -> int3: the pedant is not a kind of a call-out or it is biflagellate or both.; sent7 -> int4: the pedant is not a propyl if it is not a call-out and/or it is not non-biflagellate.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pedant is not a propyl.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a propyl and does squish bookkeeper.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the bookkeeper does repot Karpov.; int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that something repots Karpov is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the kleptomaniac is both not a right and nonionic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not docile hold the fact that the pedant is an inevitable and it is seamless does not hold. sent3: the chalcanthite is not biflagellate. sent4: if the chalcanthite is not biflagellate the bookkeeper is not biflagellate but it does squish bookkeeper. sent5: that the pedant is a kind of an inevitable and it does squish bookkeeper does not hold. sent6: that the bookkeeper repots Karpov is not false if the chalcanthite is a propyl and it does squish bookkeeper. sent7: if something is not a call-out or it is biflagellate or both it is not a propyl. sent8: if the pedant is not inevitable then it is not a kind of a call-out. sent9: if the fact that the chalcanthite is not non-biflagellate and it is a call-out is not correct it is not a propyl. sent10: that the bookkeeper is docile is not false. sent11: that the chalcanthite is either not seamless or a propyl or both hold. sent12: the pedant is not a call-out if the fact that it is a kind of an inevitable and it is seamless is not true. sent13: the pedant is not generous. sent14: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a propyl if the pedant is not a propyl. sent15: if the fact that the chalcanthite is not a kind of a call-out and/or does squish bookkeeper is right the fact that it is not a propyl is not false. sent16: something is not docile. sent17: the pedant does not repot Karpov if that it is inevitable and it squishes bookkeeper is incorrect. sent18: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a propyl but it squishes bookkeeper if the pedant is not a kind of a propyl. sent19: the chalcanthite does not repot Karpov. sent20: the pedant is a call-out and/or it is biflagellate. sent21: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a call-out or it does squish bookkeeper or both. sent22: the bookkeeper is not a propyl. sent23: that the chalcanthite is a kind of docile a Camponotus does not hold. sent24: if something is not a gradual or it is a lipectomy or both then it does not squish oxlip. sent25: that the bookkeeper repots Karpov is not false if the chalcanthite is not a propyl and does squish bookkeeper. sent26: something is docile. ; $proof$ = 
sent16 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the pedant is inevitable and it is seamless does not hold.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the pedant is not a call-out.; int2 -> int3: the pedant is not a kind of a call-out or it is biflagellate or both.; sent7 -> int4: the pedant is not a propyl if it is not a call-out and/or it is not non-biflagellate.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the pedant is not a propyl.; int5 & sent18 -> int6: the chalcanthite is not a kind of a propyl and does squish bookkeeper.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the bookkeeper does repot Karpov.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__