that the electrolytic does not antisepticize turntable and it does not antisepticize arming is false.
sent1: the oxtail is a listing if the horsepond is three-wheel. sent2: if something is a kind of a picnicker it is three-wheel. sent3: the parallel is not imperialistic. sent4: if the parallel is not imperialistic it is not astronautic. sent5: if the fact that that the electrolytic does not antisepticize turntable and does not antisepticize arming is correct is not correct then it is a kind of a picnicker. sent6: if the electrolytic is three-wheel then the horsepond is not sadistic but it is three-wheel. sent7: the fact that the bregma does not correspond Cody is not wrong if the oxtail does list. sent8: the fact that the bregma corresponds Cody and it is anaphrodisiac is not incorrect if the parallel is not astronautic. sent9: if the electrolytic is not sadistic the fact that it is a picnicker and is not a listing is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that the electrolytic does not antisepticize turntable and it does not antisepticize arming is wrong is not wrong.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the electrolytic is a picnicker.; sent2 -> int2: the electrolytic is three-wheel if it is a picnicker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the electrolytic is three-wheel.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the horsepond is not sadistic and is three-wheel.; int4 -> int5: the horsepond is three-wheel.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the oxtail lists.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the fact that the bregma does not correspond Cody hold.; sent4 & sent3 -> int8: the parallel is not astronautic.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the bregma does correspond Cody and it is anaphrodisiac.; int9 -> int10: the bregma corresponds Cody.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
the incisor does antisepticize turntable.
$hypothesis$ = that the electrolytic does not antisepticize turntable and it does not antisepticize arming is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the oxtail is a listing if the horsepond is three-wheel. sent2: if something is a kind of a picnicker it is three-wheel. sent3: the parallel is not imperialistic. sent4: if the parallel is not imperialistic it is not astronautic. sent5: if the fact that that the electrolytic does not antisepticize turntable and does not antisepticize arming is correct is not correct then it is a kind of a picnicker. sent6: if the electrolytic is three-wheel then the horsepond is not sadistic but it is three-wheel. sent7: the fact that the bregma does not correspond Cody is not wrong if the oxtail does list. sent8: the fact that the bregma corresponds Cody and it is anaphrodisiac is not incorrect if the parallel is not astronautic. sent9: if the electrolytic is not sadistic the fact that it is a picnicker and is not a listing is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that the electrolytic does not antisepticize turntable and it does not antisepticize arming is wrong is not wrong.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the electrolytic is a picnicker.; sent2 -> int2: the electrolytic is three-wheel if it is a picnicker.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the electrolytic is three-wheel.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the horsepond is not sadistic and is three-wheel.; int4 -> int5: the horsepond is three-wheel.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the oxtail lists.; int6 & sent7 -> int7: the fact that the bregma does not correspond Cody hold.; sent4 & sent3 -> int8: the parallel is not astronautic.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the bregma does correspond Cody and it is anaphrodisiac.; int9 -> int10: the bregma corresponds Cody.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__