the regulation is not an expedient but suborbital.
sent1: if the agriculturist is suborbital then the fact that it is a kind of an egalitarian that is not an objective does not hold. sent2: everything is both a Alisma and not a Leguminosae. sent3: the agriculturist is not undue. sent4: the displacement is homemade if the chrysoprase is not a sumo and it is not a Leguminosae. sent5: that the regulation is not an expedient but suborbital is false if that the agriculturist is suborbital does not hold. sent6: that the regulation is not suborbital but it is an egalitarian is incorrect if the agriculturist is not a kind of an egalitarian. sent7: something is both not a fir and not anguine if it is homemade. sent8: everything is a kind of a Stuart that is not an impairment. sent9: if the regulation is not a fir and is not anguine the agriculturist is not a fir. sent10: everything is an egalitarian and it is not an objective. sent11: if something is antiapartheid then it is not a sumo and is not a kind of a Leguminosae. sent12: that everything does infuse and it is antiapartheid is true. sent13: the fact that that something is abomasal and is not an objective hold does not hold if it is not suborbital. sent14: if the fact that the displacement is homemade or it is not a disinflation or both is not incorrect the regulation is homemade. sent15: the fact that the regulation is an expedient and it is suborbital does not hold if the agriculturist is not suborbital. sent16: the agriculturist is a kind of an egalitarian. sent17: if the fact that the agriculturist is not suborbital and it is inexpedient is false then the streetcar is not suborbital. sent18: everything is an egalitarian. sent19: the fact that the regulation is a kind of an expedient that is suborbital does not hold. sent20: if something is not a fir the fact that it is a kind of non-suborbital thing that is not an expedient is not true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the agriculturist is suborbital.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that the agriculturist is an egalitarian but not an objective is not true.; sent10 -> int2: that the agriculturist is an egalitarian and is not a kind of an objective is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the agriculturist is not suborbital.; int4 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the streetcar is abomasal but it is not an objective does not hold.
sent13 -> int5: if that the fact that the streetcar is suborbital hold is not true then that it is abomasal and it is not a kind of an objective does not hold.; sent20 -> int6: the fact that the agriculturist is not suborbital but inexpedient is incorrect if it is not a kind of a fir.; sent7 -> int7: that the regulation is not a fir and it is not anguine is correct if it is homemade.; sent11 -> int8: if that the chrysoprase is antiapartheid is not incorrect then that it is not a sumo and is not a Leguminosae hold.; sent12 -> int9: the chrysoprase does infuse and it is antiapartheid.; int9 -> int10: the chrysoprase is antiapartheid.; int8 & int10 -> int11: the chrysoprase is not a sumo and is not a Leguminosae.; sent4 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the displacement is homemade hold.; int12 -> int13: the displacement is homemade or it is not a disinflation or both.; sent14 & int13 -> int14: the regulation is homemade.; int7 & int14 -> int15: the regulation is not a fir but non-anguine.; sent9 & int15 -> int16: the agriculturist is not a fir.; int6 & int16 -> int17: that the agriculturist is non-suborbital and it is not an expedient does not hold.; sent17 & int17 -> int18: that the streetcar is not suborbital hold.; int5 & int18 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the regulation is not an expedient but suborbital. ; $context$ = sent1: if the agriculturist is suborbital then the fact that it is a kind of an egalitarian that is not an objective does not hold. sent2: everything is both a Alisma and not a Leguminosae. sent3: the agriculturist is not undue. sent4: the displacement is homemade if the chrysoprase is not a sumo and it is not a Leguminosae. sent5: that the regulation is not an expedient but suborbital is false if that the agriculturist is suborbital does not hold. sent6: that the regulation is not suborbital but it is an egalitarian is incorrect if the agriculturist is not a kind of an egalitarian. sent7: something is both not a fir and not anguine if it is homemade. sent8: everything is a kind of a Stuart that is not an impairment. sent9: if the regulation is not a fir and is not anguine the agriculturist is not a fir. sent10: everything is an egalitarian and it is not an objective. sent11: if something is antiapartheid then it is not a sumo and is not a kind of a Leguminosae. sent12: that everything does infuse and it is antiapartheid is true. sent13: the fact that that something is abomasal and is not an objective hold does not hold if it is not suborbital. sent14: if the fact that the displacement is homemade or it is not a disinflation or both is not incorrect the regulation is homemade. sent15: the fact that the regulation is an expedient and it is suborbital does not hold if the agriculturist is not suborbital. sent16: the agriculturist is a kind of an egalitarian. sent17: if the fact that the agriculturist is not suborbital and it is inexpedient is false then the streetcar is not suborbital. sent18: everything is an egalitarian. sent19: the fact that the regulation is a kind of an expedient that is suborbital does not hold. sent20: if something is not a fir the fact that it is a kind of non-suborbital thing that is not an expedient is not true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the agriculturist is suborbital.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that the agriculturist is an egalitarian but not an objective is not true.; sent10 -> int2: that the agriculturist is an egalitarian and is not a kind of an objective is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the agriculturist is not suborbital.; int4 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__