the Romany is vicinal.
sent1: there exists something such that it is not a engorgement but collegial. sent2: the Miller is a kind of a meronym but it is non-lacustrine. sent3: if the Miller is lacustrine but it is not vicinal the Romany does not spill shuttlecock. sent4: the orthodontist is not conjunctival and it does not cuckoo. sent5: the Romany is not a meronym. sent6: the buddleia is not a sedum. sent7: something is not a meronym and is lacustrine. sent8: the Romany does not spill Sialidae. sent9: if a non-conjunctival thing spills visualizer then the Miller does not dilapidate Miller. sent10: the fact that something is a kind of conjunctival thing that is a kind of a excitability is not wrong. sent11: if something that is not a meronym is not vicinal it does not spill shuttlecock. sent12: the Romany is not non-vicinal if the Miller is a sedum. sent13: there exists something such that it is not conjunctival. sent14: something is a excitability. sent15: that the Romany spills shuttlecock does not hold if the Miller is a meronym but not lacustrine. sent16: the Miller is a kind of a meronym. sent17: if something that is not conjunctival is a excitability then the Romany is not a sedum. sent18: there exists something such that it is not conjunctival and it is a excitability. sent19: the Romany is not a kind of a meronym if the Miller does spill shuttlecock but it is not vicinal. sent20: something is not vicinal if it is not a sedum and does not spill shuttlecock.
sent15 & sent2 -> int1: that the Romany does not spill shuttlecock is right.; sent18 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the Romany is not a sedum is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Romany is not a sedum and it does not spill shuttlecock.; sent20 -> int4: if the Romany is not a sedum and it does not spill shuttlecock it is not vicinal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the Romany is vicinal.
$hypothesis$ = the Romany is vicinal. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it is not a engorgement but collegial. sent2: the Miller is a kind of a meronym but it is non-lacustrine. sent3: if the Miller is lacustrine but it is not vicinal the Romany does not spill shuttlecock. sent4: the orthodontist is not conjunctival and it does not cuckoo. sent5: the Romany is not a meronym. sent6: the buddleia is not a sedum. sent7: something is not a meronym and is lacustrine. sent8: the Romany does not spill Sialidae. sent9: if a non-conjunctival thing spills visualizer then the Miller does not dilapidate Miller. sent10: the fact that something is a kind of conjunctival thing that is a kind of a excitability is not wrong. sent11: if something that is not a meronym is not vicinal it does not spill shuttlecock. sent12: the Romany is not non-vicinal if the Miller is a sedum. sent13: there exists something such that it is not conjunctival. sent14: something is a excitability. sent15: that the Romany spills shuttlecock does not hold if the Miller is a meronym but not lacustrine. sent16: the Miller is a kind of a meronym. sent17: if something that is not conjunctival is a excitability then the Romany is not a sedum. sent18: there exists something such that it is not conjunctival and it is a excitability. sent19: the Romany is not a kind of a meronym if the Miller does spill shuttlecock but it is not vicinal. sent20: something is not vicinal if it is not a sedum and does not spill shuttlecock. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 & sent2 -> int1: that the Romany does not spill shuttlecock is right.; sent18 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the Romany is not a sedum is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Romany is not a sedum and it does not spill shuttlecock.; sent20 -> int4: if the Romany is not a sedum and it does not spill shuttlecock it is not vicinal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__