that the assemblywoman is both not ecological and not a Hephaestus is incorrect.
sent1: that something is not ecological and is not a Hephaestus is not true if it does dilapidate sister-in-law. sent2: the ceramic dilapidates sister-in-law and is Maltese. sent3: if the fact that the assemblywoman is a kind of extricable thing that is not piano is incorrect then the self does not dilapidate feedstock. sent4: the fact that the waders does spill Arp hold. sent5: the peanuts is refractive if the blackberry spills Arp. sent6: if something is a Maltese it dilapidates sister-in-law. sent7: if something is refractive it does smock bubbliness. sent8: something is not non-vasomotor but derivational if it does not dilapidate feedstock. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a bornite and does not smock bubbliness is not true. sent10: the assemblywoman is a kind of vasomotor a Maltese if the ceramic is not derivational. sent11: the assemblywoman does not dilapidate sister-in-law if the ceramic is a Hephaestus. sent12: the peanuts is refractive if the blackberry is refractive. sent13: the fact that the feedstock is piano but it does not dilapidate feedstock is not right if there exists something such that it is inextricable. sent14: that that the assemblywoman is not ecological but it is a Hephaestus is right is not correct. sent15: that the blackberry is refractive or does spill Arp or both if something does spill Arp is correct. sent16: that something is not inextricable but non-piano does not hold if it is not a kind of a trot. sent17: if something smocks bubbliness then it is not a kind of a bornite. sent18: the ceramic is non-Maltese if that the assemblywoman is not ecological and it is not a kind of a Hephaestus is not true. sent19: the Ayrshire is a trot and inextricable if the peanuts is not a kind of a bornite. sent20: something is not palmar and it is not a Maltese if the fact that it does not dilapidate sister-in-law hold. sent21: if something is vasomotor then it does not dilapidate sister-in-law.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the assemblywoman is not ecological and not a Hephaestus is false.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the ceramic is not a kind of a Maltese.; sent2 -> int2: the ceramic is Maltese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
that the self is not palmar and is non-Maltese is not false.
sent20 -> int4: if the self does not dilapidate sister-in-law then it is a kind of non-palmar thing that is not Maltese.; sent21 -> int5: the self does not dilapidate sister-in-law if it is vasomotor.; sent8 -> int6: that the self is both vasomotor and derivational is not incorrect if it does not dilapidate feedstock.; sent16 -> int7: if the assemblywoman is not a trot the fact that it is extricable and it is non-piano is incorrect.;
$hypothesis$ = that the assemblywoman is both not ecological and not a Hephaestus is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not ecological and is not a Hephaestus is not true if it does dilapidate sister-in-law. sent2: the ceramic dilapidates sister-in-law and is Maltese. sent3: if the fact that the assemblywoman is a kind of extricable thing that is not piano is incorrect then the self does not dilapidate feedstock. sent4: the fact that the waders does spill Arp hold. sent5: the peanuts is refractive if the blackberry spills Arp. sent6: if something is a Maltese it dilapidates sister-in-law. sent7: if something is refractive it does smock bubbliness. sent8: something is not non-vasomotor but derivational if it does not dilapidate feedstock. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a bornite and does not smock bubbliness is not true. sent10: the assemblywoman is a kind of vasomotor a Maltese if the ceramic is not derivational. sent11: the assemblywoman does not dilapidate sister-in-law if the ceramic is a Hephaestus. sent12: the peanuts is refractive if the blackberry is refractive. sent13: the fact that the feedstock is piano but it does not dilapidate feedstock is not right if there exists something such that it is inextricable. sent14: that that the assemblywoman is not ecological but it is a Hephaestus is right is not correct. sent15: that the blackberry is refractive or does spill Arp or both if something does spill Arp is correct. sent16: that something is not inextricable but non-piano does not hold if it is not a kind of a trot. sent17: if something smocks bubbliness then it is not a kind of a bornite. sent18: the ceramic is non-Maltese if that the assemblywoman is not ecological and it is not a kind of a Hephaestus is not true. sent19: the Ayrshire is a trot and inextricable if the peanuts is not a kind of a bornite. sent20: something is not palmar and it is not a Maltese if the fact that it does not dilapidate sister-in-law hold. sent21: if something is vasomotor then it does not dilapidate sister-in-law. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the assemblywoman is not ecological and not a Hephaestus is false.; sent18 & assump1 -> int1: the ceramic is not a kind of a Maltese.; sent2 -> int2: the ceramic is Maltese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__