that that the immunosuppressant is not autographic but it lysogenizes radicchio does not hold if the archegonium is not a kind of a pinecone does not hold.
sent1: that the immunosuppressant is not autographic but it does lysogenize radicchio is not true if the radicchio is not adaptable. sent2: something is not a genitive if it is both adaptable and consonantal. sent3: the fact that the immunosuppressant is autographic and does lysogenize radicchio does not hold. sent4: the immunosuppressant is a genitive. sent5: if the radicchio is not a kind of a genitive the archegonium is not unalert. sent6: the fact that the immunosuppressant is autographic and it does lysogenize radicchio is wrong if the radicchio is not adaptable. sent7: the immunosuppressant is consonantal. sent8: if the archegonium is a kind of an alert then it is a pinecone. sent9: the fact that the immunosuppressant is non-autographic thing that lysogenizes radicchio is not true if the archegonium is a pinecone. sent10: that the radicchio is consonantal hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the radicchio is adaptable.; assump1 & sent10 -> int1: the radicchio is adaptable and is not non-consonantal.; sent2 -> int2: if the radicchio is not unadaptable and not non-consonantal it is not a genitive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the radicchio is not a genitive.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the archegonium is an alert.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the archegonium is a pinecone.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the archegonium is a pinecone does not hold.; int5 & assump2 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the radicchio is not adaptable.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: that the immunosuppressant is not autographic but it lysogenizes radicchio does not hold.; [assump2] & int8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that that the immunosuppressant is not autographic but it lysogenizes radicchio does not hold if the archegonium is not a kind of a pinecone does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the immunosuppressant is not autographic but it does lysogenize radicchio is not true if the radicchio is not adaptable. sent2: something is not a genitive if it is both adaptable and consonantal. sent3: the fact that the immunosuppressant is autographic and does lysogenize radicchio does not hold. sent4: the immunosuppressant is a genitive. sent5: if the radicchio is not a kind of a genitive the archegonium is not unalert. sent6: the fact that the immunosuppressant is autographic and it does lysogenize radicchio is wrong if the radicchio is not adaptable. sent7: the immunosuppressant is consonantal. sent8: if the archegonium is a kind of an alert then it is a pinecone. sent9: the fact that the immunosuppressant is non-autographic thing that lysogenizes radicchio is not true if the archegonium is a pinecone. sent10: that the radicchio is consonantal hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the radicchio is adaptable.; assump1 & sent10 -> int1: the radicchio is adaptable and is not non-consonantal.; sent2 -> int2: if the radicchio is not unadaptable and not non-consonantal it is not a genitive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the radicchio is not a genitive.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the archegonium is an alert.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the archegonium is a pinecone.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the archegonium is a pinecone does not hold.; int5 & assump2 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the radicchio is not adaptable.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: that the immunosuppressant is not autographic but it lysogenizes radicchio does not hold.; [assump2] & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__