that the permit is a desertion and is not a kind of a bacteroid does not hold.
sent1: if the junkie is not unacceptable then that it is not a kind of a madnep and does not contort mantel is wrong. sent2: that the hydrologist is a kind of a bacteroid hold if the deification is not a bride-gift. sent3: the fact that the mopper is a kind of unacceptable thing that is not a kind of an inverse is incorrect. sent4: the fact that something is not a madnep is not incorrect if that it does not contort mantel and is acceptable is wrong. sent5: the commando is not sublingual if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a madnep and it does not contort mantel is false. sent6: if the deification is a enology it is a regionalism. sent7: the hydrologist is a enology if the brooding is a regionalism but it is not monoecious. sent8: the brooding is a regionalism that is not monoecious if the commando is not sublingual. sent9: the permit either is not monoecious or is sublingual or both if the brooding is not a madnep. sent10: the deification is a kind of a enology if it is a bride-gift. sent11: the fact that the deification is a bride-gift but it is not a kind of a desertion is not correct if the hydrologist is a kind of a enology. sent12: the fact that something does not contort mantel and is acceptable is incorrect if it is not an inverse. sent13: the hydrologist is a kind of a regionalism and it is a enology if the permit is not a bacteroid. sent14: the commando is not bacteremic. sent15: if the commando is non-bacteremic that the brooding is inverse and animate is not true. sent16: if either something is not monoecious or it is sublingual or both it is not a bacteroid. sent17: the deification is not a regionalism. sent18: if that the hydrologist is a bacteroid is not false the permit is a desertion but it is not a bacteroid. sent19: the brooding is not inverse if the fact that it is a kind of an inverse and does animate is not true. sent20: the junkie is acceptable if there is something such that the fact that it is not acceptable and it is not inverse is incorrect.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the deification is a bride-gift.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the deification is a enology.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the deification is a regionalism.; int2 & sent17 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the deification is not a bride-gift.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the hydrologist is a bacteroid.; int5 & sent18 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the fact that the permit is a desertion that is not a bacteroid is correct is not right.
sent3 -> int6: the fact that there is something such that that it is both not acceptable and not inverse is false is right.; int6 & sent20 -> int7: the fact that the junkie is acceptable is true.; sent1 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the junkie is not a madnep and it does not contort mantel does not hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a madnep and does not contort mantel is not right.; int9 & sent5 -> int10: the commando is not sublingual.; sent8 & int10 -> int11: the brooding is a kind of a regionalism but it is not monoecious.; sent7 & int11 -> int12: the hydrologist is a enology.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it is a kind of a enology.;
$hypothesis$ = that the permit is a desertion and is not a kind of a bacteroid does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the junkie is not unacceptable then that it is not a kind of a madnep and does not contort mantel is wrong. sent2: that the hydrologist is a kind of a bacteroid hold if the deification is not a bride-gift. sent3: the fact that the mopper is a kind of unacceptable thing that is not a kind of an inverse is incorrect. sent4: the fact that something is not a madnep is not incorrect if that it does not contort mantel and is acceptable is wrong. sent5: the commando is not sublingual if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a madnep and it does not contort mantel is false. sent6: if the deification is a enology it is a regionalism. sent7: the hydrologist is a enology if the brooding is a regionalism but it is not monoecious. sent8: the brooding is a regionalism that is not monoecious if the commando is not sublingual. sent9: the permit either is not monoecious or is sublingual or both if the brooding is not a madnep. sent10: the deification is a kind of a enology if it is a bride-gift. sent11: the fact that the deification is a bride-gift but it is not a kind of a desertion is not correct if the hydrologist is a kind of a enology. sent12: the fact that something does not contort mantel and is acceptable is incorrect if it is not an inverse. sent13: the hydrologist is a kind of a regionalism and it is a enology if the permit is not a bacteroid. sent14: the commando is not bacteremic. sent15: if the commando is non-bacteremic that the brooding is inverse and animate is not true. sent16: if either something is not monoecious or it is sublingual or both it is not a bacteroid. sent17: the deification is not a regionalism. sent18: if that the hydrologist is a bacteroid is not false the permit is a desertion but it is not a bacteroid. sent19: the brooding is not inverse if the fact that it is a kind of an inverse and does animate is not true. sent20: the junkie is acceptable if there is something such that the fact that it is not acceptable and it is not inverse is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the deification is a bride-gift.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the deification is a enology.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the deification is a regionalism.; int2 & sent17 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the deification is not a bride-gift.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the hydrologist is a bacteroid.; int5 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__