the Ephesian does triple.
sent1: the fact that the janitor does not spray and it does not sight does not hold if there is something such that it is a circumvention. sent2: if the janitor is a scholarship that does incriminate then that the wheatear does not incriminate is true. sent3: if there is something such that it is a circumvention then that the fact that the janitor is a spraying but it is not a sights is not correct is not false. sent4: the fact that that the streak is plagioclastic and it does compose is not false does not hold if something does not incriminate. sent5: the streak is a scholarship and a spraying. sent6: there exists something such that it is Kantian. sent7: there is something such that it does incriminate. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both Kantian and irregular hold. sent9: if something is not a kind of a pirate it is Kantian and it does spray. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is an irregular and a scholarship is not true the wheatear is a kind of a circumvention. sent11: something is a kind of a scholarship and it incriminates if it is non-irregular. sent12: if that the janitor is not Kantian and it is not a pirate is not true the Ephesian is a spraying. sent13: the liquidambar is irregular. sent14: the fact that the streak does not recuse and it does not incriminate is false. sent15: the janitor is not Kantian. sent16: the janitor is not a spraying if it is a sights and it is an irregular. sent17: the fact that that the streak is a scholarship and does triple is false hold. sent18: something is not a kind of a pirate if it is not a Teredinidae and it is not a tripling. sent19: that the janitor is a spraying but it does not sight is not correct. sent20: the Ephesian is Kantian if that that the janitor is not a spraying and it is not a kind of a sights is not right is not wrong. sent21: if something sprays the fact that it is a sights is not wrong. sent22: if there exists something such that it does incriminate that the streak is an irregular and it is a scholarship does not hold. sent23: if the Ephesian is both not non-Kantian and a pirate it is not a kind of a tripling. sent24: the streak does pirate and it is a scholarship. sent25: the fact that the Ephesian does pirate is right. sent26: if there is something such that it is a tripling that the Ephesian is not a scholarship and it is not a pirate does not hold. sent27: the Ephesian is not a kind of a circumvention and is an irregular if the crinoid does sight.
sent7 & sent22 -> int1: the fact that the streak is a kind of an irregular and it is a scholarship is not right.; int1 -> int2: the fact that there exists something such that that it is an irregular and it is a kind of a scholarship does not hold is true.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the wheatear is a kind of a circumvention.; int3 -> int4: something is a circumvention.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that the janitor is both not a spraying and not a sights is false.; int5 & sent20 -> int6: the Ephesian is Kantian.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the Ephesian is a kind of Kantian thing that is a pirate.; int7 & sent23 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that that it is plagioclastic and does compose is wrong.
sent18 -> int8: if the technophile is not a Teredinidae and is not a tripling the fact that it is not a pirate is not false.; sent9 -> int9: if the crinoid is not a pirate then it is Kantian thing that sprays.; sent21 -> int10: if the crinoid sprays then it does sight.; sent11 -> int11: the janitor is a scholarship and it incriminates if it is not an irregular.;
$hypothesis$ = the Ephesian does triple. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the janitor does not spray and it does not sight does not hold if there is something such that it is a circumvention. sent2: if the janitor is a scholarship that does incriminate then that the wheatear does not incriminate is true. sent3: if there is something such that it is a circumvention then that the fact that the janitor is a spraying but it is not a sights is not correct is not false. sent4: the fact that that the streak is plagioclastic and it does compose is not false does not hold if something does not incriminate. sent5: the streak is a scholarship and a spraying. sent6: there exists something such that it is Kantian. sent7: there is something such that it does incriminate. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is both Kantian and irregular hold. sent9: if something is not a kind of a pirate it is Kantian and it does spray. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it is an irregular and a scholarship is not true the wheatear is a kind of a circumvention. sent11: something is a kind of a scholarship and it incriminates if it is non-irregular. sent12: if that the janitor is not Kantian and it is not a pirate is not true the Ephesian is a spraying. sent13: the liquidambar is irregular. sent14: the fact that the streak does not recuse and it does not incriminate is false. sent15: the janitor is not Kantian. sent16: the janitor is not a spraying if it is a sights and it is an irregular. sent17: the fact that that the streak is a scholarship and does triple is false hold. sent18: something is not a kind of a pirate if it is not a Teredinidae and it is not a tripling. sent19: that the janitor is a spraying but it does not sight is not correct. sent20: the Ephesian is Kantian if that that the janitor is not a spraying and it is not a kind of a sights is not right is not wrong. sent21: if something sprays the fact that it is a sights is not wrong. sent22: if there exists something such that it does incriminate that the streak is an irregular and it is a scholarship does not hold. sent23: if the Ephesian is both not non-Kantian and a pirate it is not a kind of a tripling. sent24: the streak does pirate and it is a scholarship. sent25: the fact that the Ephesian does pirate is right. sent26: if there is something such that it is a tripling that the Ephesian is not a scholarship and it is not a pirate does not hold. sent27: the Ephesian is not a kind of a circumvention and is an irregular if the crinoid does sight. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 & sent22 -> int1: the fact that the streak is a kind of an irregular and it is a scholarship is not right.; int1 -> int2: the fact that there exists something such that that it is an irregular and it is a kind of a scholarship does not hold is true.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the wheatear is a kind of a circumvention.; int3 -> int4: something is a circumvention.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that the janitor is both not a spraying and not a sights is false.; int5 & sent20 -> int6: the Ephesian is Kantian.; int6 & sent25 -> int7: the Ephesian is a kind of Kantian thing that is a pirate.; int7 & sent23 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__