the fact that the plane is irreparable but it is not permissible is wrong.
sent1: the fact that if the dipterocarp is accordant either the sirrah does not knit or it correlates jostle or both is true. sent2: if that the plane is not cataclinal is not false then the fact that the dipterocarp is accordant and is a confidante hold. sent3: that the plane is not cataclinal is correct if the backswimmer is permissible. sent4: if the fact that something is both a confidante and not a knit is wrong then it is cataclinal. sent5: the sirrah is not accordant and correlates jostle. sent6: the fact that the dipterocarp is a kind of a confidante and does knit is false. sent7: if something that is a Wigner is not irreparable it is permissible. sent8: the calcification does not correlate jostle if either the sirrah is not a knit or it correlate jostle or both. sent9: the backswimmer is a kind of a Wigner if that it is not impenitent and not a Wigner is false. sent10: if that the dipterocarp is non-accordant but it correlates jostle is incorrect then the sirrah is non-accordant. sent11: if there are non-accordant things then that the fact that the dipterocarp is a confidante but it is not a knit is not false is not correct. sent12: if the dipterocarp is cataclinal the fact that the plane is irreparable but not permissible is true.
sent5 -> int1: the sirrah is not accordant.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not accordant.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: that the dipterocarp is a confidante and does not knit is false.; sent4 -> int4: the dipterocarp is cataclinal if that that it is a confidante and it does not knit hold is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the dipterocarp is cataclinal is not incorrect.; int5 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the calcification does not correlate jostle.
sent7 -> int6: the backswimmer is not impermissible if it is a Wigner and it is not irreparable.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the plane is irreparable but it is not permissible is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the dipterocarp is accordant either the sirrah does not knit or it correlates jostle or both is true. sent2: if that the plane is not cataclinal is not false then the fact that the dipterocarp is accordant and is a confidante hold. sent3: that the plane is not cataclinal is correct if the backswimmer is permissible. sent4: if the fact that something is both a confidante and not a knit is wrong then it is cataclinal. sent5: the sirrah is not accordant and correlates jostle. sent6: the fact that the dipterocarp is a kind of a confidante and does knit is false. sent7: if something that is a Wigner is not irreparable it is permissible. sent8: the calcification does not correlate jostle if either the sirrah is not a knit or it correlate jostle or both. sent9: the backswimmer is a kind of a Wigner if that it is not impenitent and not a Wigner is false. sent10: if that the dipterocarp is non-accordant but it correlates jostle is incorrect then the sirrah is non-accordant. sent11: if there are non-accordant things then that the fact that the dipterocarp is a confidante but it is not a knit is not false is not correct. sent12: if the dipterocarp is cataclinal the fact that the plane is irreparable but not permissible is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: the sirrah is not accordant.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not accordant.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: that the dipterocarp is a confidante and does not knit is false.; sent4 -> int4: the dipterocarp is cataclinal if that that it is a confidante and it does not knit hold is wrong.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the dipterocarp is cataclinal is not incorrect.; int5 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__