the endotoxin does not sensualize razor-fish.
sent1: the fact that if the fact that the pantry is not a kind of the spinal is not incorrect the pantry is discriminatory or it does sensualize injudiciousness or both hold. sent2: the Caucasian is stenographic. sent3: the Caucasian does sensualize razor-fish if something does sensualize contumacy. sent4: the endotoxin does not sensualize razor-fish if the Caucasian sensualize razor-fish but it is not stenographic. sent5: if the pantry is discriminatory then the Caucasian does sensualize injudiciousness. sent6: the pantry is not a spinal. sent7: the pantry is not defiant. sent8: the endotoxin sensualizes razor-fish if the Caucasian is defiant. sent9: if something that is stenographic sensualizes contumacy that it does not sensualize injudiciousness is right. sent10: something is defiant if it does not sensualize contumacy. sent11: the Caucasian sensualizes injudiciousness if the pantry does sensualizes injudiciousness.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Caucasian sensualizes contumacy is not wrong.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the Caucasian is stenographic and it sensualizes contumacy.; sent9 -> int2: if the Caucasian is stenographic and it does sensualize contumacy then it does not sensualize injudiciousness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Caucasian does not sensualize injudiciousness is not wrong.; sent1 & sent6 -> int4: the pantry either is discriminatory or sensualizes injudiciousness or both.; int4 & sent5 & sent11 -> int5: the Caucasian does sensualize injudiciousness.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Caucasian does not sensualize contumacy.; sent10 -> int8: if the Caucasian does not sensualize contumacy then it is defiant.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the Caucasian is defiant.; int9 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the endotoxin does not sensualize razor-fish.
$hypothesis$ = the endotoxin does not sensualize razor-fish. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the fact that the pantry is not a kind of the spinal is not incorrect the pantry is discriminatory or it does sensualize injudiciousness or both hold. sent2: the Caucasian is stenographic. sent3: the Caucasian does sensualize razor-fish if something does sensualize contumacy. sent4: the endotoxin does not sensualize razor-fish if the Caucasian sensualize razor-fish but it is not stenographic. sent5: if the pantry is discriminatory then the Caucasian does sensualize injudiciousness. sent6: the pantry is not a spinal. sent7: the pantry is not defiant. sent8: the endotoxin sensualizes razor-fish if the Caucasian is defiant. sent9: if something that is stenographic sensualizes contumacy that it does not sensualize injudiciousness is right. sent10: something is defiant if it does not sensualize contumacy. sent11: the Caucasian sensualizes injudiciousness if the pantry does sensualizes injudiciousness. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Caucasian sensualizes contumacy is not wrong.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the Caucasian is stenographic and it sensualizes contumacy.; sent9 -> int2: if the Caucasian is stenographic and it does sensualize contumacy then it does not sensualize injudiciousness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Caucasian does not sensualize injudiciousness is not wrong.; sent1 & sent6 -> int4: the pantry either is discriminatory or sensualizes injudiciousness or both.; int4 & sent5 & sent11 -> int5: the Caucasian does sensualize injudiciousness.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Caucasian does not sensualize contumacy.; sent10 -> int8: if the Caucasian does not sensualize contumacy then it is defiant.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the Caucasian is defiant.; int9 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__