the fact that the myelocyte is expressionist or is a kind of an exhilaration or both is not right.
sent1: if the fact that the rampart purples bunco and is a kind of a homo is not true then it is not homeopathic. sent2: that something is an expressionist and/or it is a kind of an exhilaration is incorrect if it is not alchemistic. sent3: the fact that the rampart purples bunco and is a homo is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a claim and it does not spread stuffer does not hold then the rampart is alchemistic. sent5: the myelocyte is not alchemistic if that the rampart is not alchemistic and it does not bald is not true. sent6: something that is not non-alchemistic does not bald and is not a kind of a stigmatic. sent7: that something does not bald and it is not a kind of a stigmatic is wrong if it is not homeopathic. sent8: the rampart does not bald. sent9: the myelocyte is not a homo. sent10: if the rampart is not non-stigmatic but it does not bald then the gonif is not alchemistic. sent11: if something is not alchemistic then it is a antistrophe. sent12: if the muesli is a kind of a claim but it does not spread stuffer the myelocyte is an exhilaration.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the muesli is a claim and does not spread stuffer is not false is incorrect.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a claim that does not spread stuffer is false.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the rampart is alchemistic.; sent6 -> int3: if the rampart is alchemistic then it does not bald and is not a stigmatic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the rampart does not bald and it is not a stigmatic.; sent7 -> int5: if the rampart is not homeopathic that it does not bald and it is non-stigmatic is false.; sent1 & sent3 -> int6: the rampart is not homeopathic.; int5 & int6 -> int7: that the rampart does not bald and is not a stigmatic is wrong.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the muesli claims and does not spread stuffer.; int9 & sent12 -> int10: the myelocyte is a kind of an exhilaration.; int10 -> hypothesis;
either the gonif is a antistrophe or it is a vertebrate or both.
sent11 -> int11: if that the gonif is not alchemistic is right it is a antistrophe.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the myelocyte is expressionist or is a kind of an exhilaration or both is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the rampart purples bunco and is a kind of a homo is not true then it is not homeopathic. sent2: that something is an expressionist and/or it is a kind of an exhilaration is incorrect if it is not alchemistic. sent3: the fact that the rampart purples bunco and is a homo is not right. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a claim and it does not spread stuffer does not hold then the rampart is alchemistic. sent5: the myelocyte is not alchemistic if that the rampart is not alchemistic and it does not bald is not true. sent6: something that is not non-alchemistic does not bald and is not a kind of a stigmatic. sent7: that something does not bald and it is not a kind of a stigmatic is wrong if it is not homeopathic. sent8: the rampart does not bald. sent9: the myelocyte is not a homo. sent10: if the rampart is not non-stigmatic but it does not bald then the gonif is not alchemistic. sent11: if something is not alchemistic then it is a antistrophe. sent12: if the muesli is a kind of a claim but it does not spread stuffer the myelocyte is an exhilaration. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the muesli is a claim and does not spread stuffer is not false is incorrect.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a claim that does not spread stuffer is false.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the rampart is alchemistic.; sent6 -> int3: if the rampart is alchemistic then it does not bald and is not a stigmatic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the rampart does not bald and it is not a stigmatic.; sent7 -> int5: if the rampart is not homeopathic that it does not bald and it is non-stigmatic is false.; sent1 & sent3 -> int6: the rampart is not homeopathic.; int5 & int6 -> int7: that the rampart does not bald and is not a stigmatic is wrong.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the muesli claims and does not spread stuffer.; int9 & sent12 -> int10: the myelocyte is a kind of an exhilaration.; int10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__