the fact that the microeconomist is a gastrogavage and a opah is incorrect.
sent1: the microeconomist is not uncomfortable if the fact that the playbox is both not a gastrogavage and a opah does not hold. sent2: the microeconomist is a gastrogavage and is a opah if there is something such that it is uncomfortable. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a gastrogavage. sent4: something is uncomfortable if it is sublunar. sent5: the chip is not a dystrophy if it rekindles lack. sent6: the microeconomist strains microeconomist and is a opah if there is something such that it is postmenopausal. sent7: something is sublunar if it does not rekindle lack. sent8: if that the microeconomist is a dystrophy but it is not sublunar is wrong it does not rekindle lack. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a gastrogavage and it is a opah is not correct if it does not rekindle lack. sent10: everything is a kind of a dystrophy.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chip does rekindle lack.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the chip is not a dystrophy.; sent10 -> int2: the chip is a dystrophy.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the chip does not rekindle lack.; sent7 -> int5: the chip is sublunar if it does not rekindle lack.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the chip is sublunar.; sent4 -> int7: the fact that the chip is uncomfortable is true if it is not non-sublunar.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the chip is uncomfortable.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is uncomfortable.; int9 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the microeconomist is a gastrogavage and it is a opah does not hold.
sent9 -> int10: that the microeconomist is a gastrogavage and it is a kind of a opah is incorrect if it does not rekindle lack.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the microeconomist is a gastrogavage and a opah is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the microeconomist is not uncomfortable if the fact that the playbox is both not a gastrogavage and a opah does not hold. sent2: the microeconomist is a gastrogavage and is a opah if there is something such that it is uncomfortable. sent3: there is something such that it is a kind of a gastrogavage. sent4: something is uncomfortable if it is sublunar. sent5: the chip is not a dystrophy if it rekindles lack. sent6: the microeconomist strains microeconomist and is a opah if there is something such that it is postmenopausal. sent7: something is sublunar if it does not rekindle lack. sent8: if that the microeconomist is a dystrophy but it is not sublunar is wrong it does not rekindle lack. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a gastrogavage and it is a opah is not correct if it does not rekindle lack. sent10: everything is a kind of a dystrophy. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chip does rekindle lack.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the chip is not a dystrophy.; sent10 -> int2: the chip is a dystrophy.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the chip does not rekindle lack.; sent7 -> int5: the chip is sublunar if it does not rekindle lack.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the chip is sublunar.; sent4 -> int7: the fact that the chip is uncomfortable is true if it is not non-sublunar.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the chip is uncomfortable.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is uncomfortable.; int9 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__