the fact that the emmenagogue is a tetri but it is not a kind of a scrappiness is not right.
sent1: if that the T-man is not a scrappiness is true then the emmenagogue is a kind of a tetri that is not a scrappiness. sent2: the heulandite does cripple and/or it does react. sent3: the turncock is a fence if the heulandite does react. sent4: the deerskin is non-agronomic and is not an obsidian if the turncock is a fence. sent5: if the fact that the T-man is a kind of a scrappiness is right the slum is a kind of non-enzymatic a functionalism. sent6: if a non-enzymatic thing is a functionalism then it is a usufructuary. sent7: the fact that the turncock fences is not false if the heulandite cripples. sent8: the deerskin is agronomic if the slum is a kind of an anger. sent9: something that is a usufructuary is an anger.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the T-man is a scrappiness.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the slum is not enzymatic but it is a functionalism.; sent6 -> int2: the slum is usufructuary if it is not enzymatic and it is a functionalism.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the slum is a usufructuary.; sent9 -> int4: the slum is an anger if it is usufructuary.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the slum angers.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the deerskin is agronomic.; sent2 & sent7 & sent3 -> int7: the turncock is a fence.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the deerskin is not agronomic and it is not an obsidian.; int8 -> int9: the deerskin is not agronomic.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the T-man is not a scrappiness.; int11 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the emmenagogue is a tetri but it is not a kind of a scrappiness is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the T-man is not a scrappiness is true then the emmenagogue is a kind of a tetri that is not a scrappiness. sent2: the heulandite does cripple and/or it does react. sent3: the turncock is a fence if the heulandite does react. sent4: the deerskin is non-agronomic and is not an obsidian if the turncock is a fence. sent5: if the fact that the T-man is a kind of a scrappiness is right the slum is a kind of non-enzymatic a functionalism. sent6: if a non-enzymatic thing is a functionalism then it is a usufructuary. sent7: the fact that the turncock fences is not false if the heulandite cripples. sent8: the deerskin is agronomic if the slum is a kind of an anger. sent9: something that is a usufructuary is an anger. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the T-man is a scrappiness.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the slum is not enzymatic but it is a functionalism.; sent6 -> int2: the slum is usufructuary if it is not enzymatic and it is a functionalism.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the slum is a usufructuary.; sent9 -> int4: the slum is an anger if it is usufructuary.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the slum angers.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the deerskin is agronomic.; sent2 & sent7 & sent3 -> int7: the turncock is a fence.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the deerskin is not agronomic and it is not an obsidian.; int8 -> int9: the deerskin is not agronomic.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> int11: the T-man is not a scrappiness.; int11 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__