the caracal is not morphemic and is not pharmacological.
sent1: if the fact that the autofocus does not suckle and is an opportunity is not correct the caracal is non-seminiferous. sent2: that something is both exculpatory and not unable does not hold if it is non-meiotic. sent3: the caracal is meiotic. sent4: the shipside does not suckle if the municipality is unawares but it does not measure Ni-resist. sent5: if the caracal is non-morphemic thing that is pharmacological it is not exculpatory. sent6: the fact that the autofocus does not suckle but it is an opportunity is not right. sent7: if the caracal is not morphemic and is not pharmacological the fact that it is not exculpatory is right. sent8: the autofocus is not seminiferous if that the sheet is exculpatory but it is not unable is not true. sent9: that the municipality is both firmamental and non-anaclinal is false if it is not a Saipan. sent10: if the autofocus is not an opportunity then the caracal is not seminiferous. sent11: that the caracal is not morphemic but pharmacological is not true. sent12: the municipality does not measure Ni-resist if that it is a kind of firmamental thing that is not anaclinal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the caracal is morphemic but it is not pharmacological is not right. sent14: the fact that everything is unawares is correct. sent15: the caracal is meiotic and it is unable. sent16: if the autofocus is not seminiferous that the caracal is not morphemic and it is not pharmacological hold. sent17: the fact that the caracal is not exculpatory is correct if it is morphemic and it is not pharmacological. sent18: the fact that something is unable but it is not seminiferous is not right if it is not exculpatory.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the caracal is not morphemic and is not pharmacological.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the caracal is not exculpatory.; sent18 -> int2: if the caracal is not exculpatory then that it is unable and it is not seminiferous is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the caracal is unable but it is not seminiferous is not correct.; sent15 -> int4: the caracal is unable.; sent1 & sent6 -> int5: that the caracal is not seminiferous is correct.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the caracal is unable and not seminiferous.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the caracal is non-morphemic and it is not pharmacological.
sent2 -> int8: that the sheet is not non-exculpatory and not unable is incorrect if it is not meiotic.; sent14 -> int9: the municipality is unawares.;
$hypothesis$ = the caracal is not morphemic and is not pharmacological. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the autofocus does not suckle and is an opportunity is not correct the caracal is non-seminiferous. sent2: that something is both exculpatory and not unable does not hold if it is non-meiotic. sent3: the caracal is meiotic. sent4: the shipside does not suckle if the municipality is unawares but it does not measure Ni-resist. sent5: if the caracal is non-morphemic thing that is pharmacological it is not exculpatory. sent6: the fact that the autofocus does not suckle but it is an opportunity is not right. sent7: if the caracal is not morphemic and is not pharmacological the fact that it is not exculpatory is right. sent8: the autofocus is not seminiferous if that the sheet is exculpatory but it is not unable is not true. sent9: that the municipality is both firmamental and non-anaclinal is false if it is not a Saipan. sent10: if the autofocus is not an opportunity then the caracal is not seminiferous. sent11: that the caracal is not morphemic but pharmacological is not true. sent12: the municipality does not measure Ni-resist if that it is a kind of firmamental thing that is not anaclinal does not hold. sent13: the fact that the caracal is morphemic but it is not pharmacological is not right. sent14: the fact that everything is unawares is correct. sent15: the caracal is meiotic and it is unable. sent16: if the autofocus is not seminiferous that the caracal is not morphemic and it is not pharmacological hold. sent17: the fact that the caracal is not exculpatory is correct if it is morphemic and it is not pharmacological. sent18: the fact that something is unable but it is not seminiferous is not right if it is not exculpatory. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the caracal is not morphemic and is not pharmacological.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the caracal is not exculpatory.; sent18 -> int2: if the caracal is not exculpatory then that it is unable and it is not seminiferous is not right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the caracal is unable but it is not seminiferous is not correct.; sent15 -> int4: the caracal is unable.; sent1 & sent6 -> int5: that the caracal is not seminiferous is correct.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the caracal is unable and not seminiferous.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__