the fact that the stationery is not a kind of a ladylikeness hold.
sent1: if something is upper-class then it is not anaphasic. sent2: something is non-inalienable thing that is a all-rounder if it is not a kind of a flagfish. sent3: the fact that the tile does clap suspension and is a Pierrot is not right. sent4: the aftershock is inalienable if the Ahuehuete is not inalienable but it is a kind of a all-rounder. sent5: the fact that that something is not inalienable and is anaphasic hold is wrong if that it is a kind of a all-rounder is not wrong. sent6: something is not anaphasic if that it does tout humanitarianism and is not upper-class is not correct. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a all-rounder the fact that the Segway is non-anaphasic thing that is inalienable is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that it is not upper-class. sent9: the Segway is anaphasic if something that is upper-class is not a ladylikeness. sent10: if that the aftershock is not anaphasic or it is not a ladylikeness or both is false then the stationery is not a ladylikeness. sent11: the stationery is a ladylikeness if something touts humanitarianism and is not upper-class. sent12: something is a all-rounder. sent13: the fact that something is anaphasic is right if that it is not anaphasic but inalienable is wrong. sent14: the fact that the Segway is a ladylikeness and does tout humanitarianism is false. sent15: something is not a flagfish if it is not marmorean and it is a kind of a tureen. sent16: if the ways is not original or it is not marmorean or both then the Ahuehuete is not marmorean. sent17: the have is a kind of a ladylikeness if there is something such that the fact that it is not inalienable but anaphasic is not right. sent18: the section is upper-class. sent19: the fact that the Segway is anaphasic and it is inalienable does not hold. sent20: if there is something such that the fact that it does clap suspension and it is a Pierrot is incorrect the ways is a condiment. sent21: something that is a condiment is not an original or is not marmorean or both.
sent6 -> int1: if the fact that the Segway does tout humanitarianism but it is not upper-class does not hold it is not anaphasic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Segway does tout humanitarianism and is not upper-class is not right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the Segway is not anaphasic.; sent13 -> int3: if that the Segway is not anaphasic but it is inalienable is not correct it is anaphasic.; sent12 & sent7 -> int4: that the Segway is non-anaphasic but it is inalienable is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Segway is not non-anaphasic.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Segway does tout humanitarianism but it is not upper-class.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it does tout humanitarianism and is not upper-class.; int8 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
the have is a kind of a ladylikeness.
sent5 -> int9: if the aftershock is a kind of a all-rounder that it is not inalienable and it is anaphasic is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the stationery is not a kind of a ladylikeness hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is upper-class then it is not anaphasic. sent2: something is non-inalienable thing that is a all-rounder if it is not a kind of a flagfish. sent3: the fact that the tile does clap suspension and is a Pierrot is not right. sent4: the aftershock is inalienable if the Ahuehuete is not inalienable but it is a kind of a all-rounder. sent5: the fact that that something is not inalienable and is anaphasic hold is wrong if that it is a kind of a all-rounder is not wrong. sent6: something is not anaphasic if that it does tout humanitarianism and is not upper-class is not correct. sent7: if there exists something such that it is a all-rounder the fact that the Segway is non-anaphasic thing that is inalienable is wrong. sent8: there exists something such that it is not upper-class. sent9: the Segway is anaphasic if something that is upper-class is not a ladylikeness. sent10: if that the aftershock is not anaphasic or it is not a ladylikeness or both is false then the stationery is not a ladylikeness. sent11: the stationery is a ladylikeness if something touts humanitarianism and is not upper-class. sent12: something is a all-rounder. sent13: the fact that something is anaphasic is right if that it is not anaphasic but inalienable is wrong. sent14: the fact that the Segway is a ladylikeness and does tout humanitarianism is false. sent15: something is not a flagfish if it is not marmorean and it is a kind of a tureen. sent16: if the ways is not original or it is not marmorean or both then the Ahuehuete is not marmorean. sent17: the have is a kind of a ladylikeness if there is something such that the fact that it is not inalienable but anaphasic is not right. sent18: the section is upper-class. sent19: the fact that the Segway is anaphasic and it is inalienable does not hold. sent20: if there is something such that the fact that it does clap suspension and it is a Pierrot is incorrect the ways is a condiment. sent21: something that is a condiment is not an original or is not marmorean or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: if the fact that the Segway does tout humanitarianism but it is not upper-class does not hold it is not anaphasic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Segway does tout humanitarianism and is not upper-class is not right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the Segway is not anaphasic.; sent13 -> int3: if that the Segway is not anaphasic but it is inalienable is not correct it is anaphasic.; sent12 & sent7 -> int4: that the Segway is non-anaphasic but it is inalienable is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Segway is not non-anaphasic.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Segway does tout humanitarianism but it is not upper-class.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it does tout humanitarianism and is not upper-class.; int8 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__