the fact that the audio narrates physa and is not a connotation does not hold.
sent1: if the bondholder does not uncork ethnarch but it is a kind of a crook the scapegoat does uncork entreaty. sent2: the audio is scopal and it is a kind of a leer. sent3: the fact that the audio does narrate physa but it is not a connotation is wrong if that the bondholder is not a polack hold. sent4: if the scapegoat does adjust then the audio is specialistic. sent5: the bondholder does not uncork ethnarch but it crooks. sent6: the audio narrates physa if it is specialistic. sent7: something does adjust if it does narrate Colosseum. sent8: the audio is not a connotation. sent9: if there is something such that it does uncork chutzpanik then that the scapegoat does not uncork chutzpanik but it is a connotation is wrong. sent10: if that the scapegoat does not uncork chutzpanik but it is a connotation is false it does not narrate physa. sent11: if something leers then it uncorks chutzpanik. sent12: the gingerol adjusts if the bondholder does uncork entreaty and is not a polack. sent13: the scapegoat does narrate Colosseum if the fact that it is a polack is true. sent14: the scapegoat is a kind of a polack if it uncorks entreaty. sent15: if the bondholder does uncork ethnarch and it does crook then the scapegoat does uncork entreaty. sent16: that the bondholder does not uncork ethnarch is true. sent17: the bondholder is specialistic and it does narrate Colosseum if something does not narrate physa.
sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the scapegoat uncorks entreaty.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: that the scapegoat is a polack is correct.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the scapegoat narrates Colosseum.; sent7 -> int4: the scapegoat adjusts if it narrates Colosseum.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the scapegoat adjusts.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the audio is specialistic.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the audio narrates physa.; int7 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
that the audio narrates physa but it is not a connotation is not true.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the audio narrates physa and is not a connotation does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bondholder does not uncork ethnarch but it is a kind of a crook the scapegoat does uncork entreaty. sent2: the audio is scopal and it is a kind of a leer. sent3: the fact that the audio does narrate physa but it is not a connotation is wrong if that the bondholder is not a polack hold. sent4: if the scapegoat does adjust then the audio is specialistic. sent5: the bondholder does not uncork ethnarch but it crooks. sent6: the audio narrates physa if it is specialistic. sent7: something does adjust if it does narrate Colosseum. sent8: the audio is not a connotation. sent9: if there is something such that it does uncork chutzpanik then that the scapegoat does not uncork chutzpanik but it is a connotation is wrong. sent10: if that the scapegoat does not uncork chutzpanik but it is a connotation is false it does not narrate physa. sent11: if something leers then it uncorks chutzpanik. sent12: the gingerol adjusts if the bondholder does uncork entreaty and is not a polack. sent13: the scapegoat does narrate Colosseum if the fact that it is a polack is true. sent14: the scapegoat is a kind of a polack if it uncorks entreaty. sent15: if the bondholder does uncork ethnarch and it does crook then the scapegoat does uncork entreaty. sent16: that the bondholder does not uncork ethnarch is true. sent17: the bondholder is specialistic and it does narrate Colosseum if something does not narrate physa. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 & sent5 -> int1: the scapegoat uncorks entreaty.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: that the scapegoat is a polack is correct.; int2 & sent13 -> int3: the scapegoat narrates Colosseum.; sent7 -> int4: the scapegoat adjusts if it narrates Colosseum.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the scapegoat adjusts.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the audio is specialistic.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the audio narrates physa.; int7 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__