the Jeroboam is faceless.
sent1: the aspartame either adapts or is a censoring or both if the Jeroboam is faceless. sent2: the aspartame adapts and/or it is a censoring. sent3: the cyclohexanol is mass-spectrometric. sent4: something is faceless if that it is mass-spectrometric and it is not a trample does not hold. sent5: if that something does snag gamut and is a kind of a holism does not hold then it is not a holism. sent6: if the fact that something either is not a kind of a sunbather or is not zonal or both is incorrect then it does judge preservation. sent7: that if the aspartame adapts and/or it does not censor the pendant is mass-spectrometric is true. sent8: the boiling is not faceless. sent9: the fact that the pendant is mass-spectrometric is not incorrect if the aspartame is not a kind of a censoring. sent10: if the aspartame does trample then the cyclohexanol does adapt and/or it does not censor. sent11: if the Jeroboam is faceless the aspartame adapts or it is not a kind of a censoring or both. sent12: if the pendant is mass-spectrometric then the cyclohexanol does not trample. sent13: if the pendant is not a holism then that either the aspartame is not a kind of a sunbather or it is not zonal or both is not right. sent14: the cyclohexanol tramples.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Jeroboam is faceless.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the aspartame either adapts or is not a kind of a censoring or both.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the pendant is mass-spectrometric.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the cyclohexanol is not a trample.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the Jeroboam is faceless.
sent4 -> int5: the Jeroboam is faceless if the fact that it is mass-spectrometric and not a trample does not hold.; sent6 -> int6: the aspartame judges preservation if the fact that it is not a sunbather and/or it is not zonal does not hold.; sent5 -> int7: the pendant is not a holism if the fact that it snags gamut and it is a kind of a holism is incorrect.;
$hypothesis$ = the Jeroboam is faceless. ; $context$ = sent1: the aspartame either adapts or is a censoring or both if the Jeroboam is faceless. sent2: the aspartame adapts and/or it is a censoring. sent3: the cyclohexanol is mass-spectrometric. sent4: something is faceless if that it is mass-spectrometric and it is not a trample does not hold. sent5: if that something does snag gamut and is a kind of a holism does not hold then it is not a holism. sent6: if the fact that something either is not a kind of a sunbather or is not zonal or both is incorrect then it does judge preservation. sent7: that if the aspartame adapts and/or it does not censor the pendant is mass-spectrometric is true. sent8: the boiling is not faceless. sent9: the fact that the pendant is mass-spectrometric is not incorrect if the aspartame is not a kind of a censoring. sent10: if the aspartame does trample then the cyclohexanol does adapt and/or it does not censor. sent11: if the Jeroboam is faceless the aspartame adapts or it is not a kind of a censoring or both. sent12: if the pendant is mass-spectrometric then the cyclohexanol does not trample. sent13: if the pendant is not a holism then that either the aspartame is not a kind of a sunbather or it is not zonal or both is not right. sent14: the cyclohexanol tramples. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Jeroboam is faceless.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the aspartame either adapts or is not a kind of a censoring or both.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the pendant is mass-spectrometric.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the cyclohexanol is not a trample.; int3 & sent14 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__