the fact that the supermodel does frisk Gambian hold.
sent1: something is both not a baboon and not an incident. sent2: if the fact that the liner is seraphic and does not dwell is not correct the supermodel does not frisk Gambian. sent3: the supermodel is non-incident. sent4: the SNP is fluvial. sent5: the mausoleum does not frisk oration. sent6: the mausoleum is not a lady. sent7: the fact that the SNP is not burglarious and it does not bind DLE is not correct if it is not a kind of a wormwood. sent8: there is something such that that it does not bind supermodel and is a kind of a superscript does not hold. sent9: the fact that the supermodel is a lady but it does not frisk Gambian does not hold. sent10: the liner is not a acquittance. sent11: The oration does not frisk mausoleum. sent12: the fact that the mausoleum does dwell but it is not a baboon is not true if the liner is fluvial. sent13: the mausoleum dwells if it is not a lady. sent14: if something does not frisk connotation then that it is seraphic and does not dwell is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that it frisks connotation the liner is a lady. sent16: the mausoleum is not fluvial and is not a lady. sent17: the fact that the supermodel either is a wormwood or does frisk oration or both hold if there is something such that it is not an incident. sent18: the fact that the mausoleum is a kind of an incident but it does not frisk oration is not correct if the SNP is a wormwood. sent19: the SNP is a wormwood if there is something such that that that it is not a baboon and it is not a kind of a acquittance hold is false. sent20: the sector is a lady. sent21: the fact that something is seraphic thing that dwells is wrong if it does not frisk connotation. sent22: if the liner is not a baboon and it is not a acquittance it does not frisk connotation. sent23: the SNP is not an incident if there exists something such that the fact that it does frisk connotation and is not seraphic is not correct. sent24: the liner does not frisk oration. sent25: the liner is not a baboon if it is not a acquittance and it is not a lady. sent26: the supermodel is fluvial if there exists something such that that it does not frisk Gambian and it is not a wormwood is not correct. sent27: the fact that something does frisk connotation but it is not seraphic is incorrect if it dwells. sent28: the mausoleum is a kind of an incident if it is a kind of non-fluvial thing that is not a lady.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the liner is not a kind of a baboon and it is not a kind of a acquittance does not hold.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that that it is not a baboon and it is not a kind of a acquittance is not true.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the SNP is a wormwood.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the fact that the mausoleum is an incident but it does not frisk oration is not right.; sent28 & sent16 -> int4: the mausoleum is an incident.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the mausoleum is incident but it does not frisk oration.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the liner is not a baboon and it is not a acquittance.; int7 & sent22 -> int8: the liner does not frisk connotation.; sent14 -> int9: if the liner does not frisk connotation the fact that it is seraphic and it does not dwell does not hold.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the liner is seraphic thing that does not dwell is not correct.; int10 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the supermodel frisks Gambian.
sent27 -> int11: that the mausoleum frisks connotation and is not seraphic is false if that it does not dwell is false.; sent13 & sent6 -> int12: that the mausoleum does dwell is not incorrect.; int11 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the mausoleum frisks connotation but it is not seraphic does not hold.; int13 -> int14: there exists something such that that it does frisk connotation and it is not seraphic does not hold.; int14 & sent23 -> int15: the SNP is not an incident.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that it is not an incident.; int16 & sent17 -> int17: either the supermodel is a wormwood or it frisks oration or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the supermodel does frisk Gambian hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something is both not a baboon and not an incident. sent2: if the fact that the liner is seraphic and does not dwell is not correct the supermodel does not frisk Gambian. sent3: the supermodel is non-incident. sent4: the SNP is fluvial. sent5: the mausoleum does not frisk oration. sent6: the mausoleum is not a lady. sent7: the fact that the SNP is not burglarious and it does not bind DLE is not correct if it is not a kind of a wormwood. sent8: there is something such that that it does not bind supermodel and is a kind of a superscript does not hold. sent9: the fact that the supermodel is a lady but it does not frisk Gambian does not hold. sent10: the liner is not a acquittance. sent11: The oration does not frisk mausoleum. sent12: the fact that the mausoleum does dwell but it is not a baboon is not true if the liner is fluvial. sent13: the mausoleum dwells if it is not a lady. sent14: if something does not frisk connotation then that it is seraphic and does not dwell is not correct. sent15: if there is something such that it frisks connotation the liner is a lady. sent16: the mausoleum is not fluvial and is not a lady. sent17: the fact that the supermodel either is a wormwood or does frisk oration or both hold if there is something such that it is not an incident. sent18: the fact that the mausoleum is a kind of an incident but it does not frisk oration is not correct if the SNP is a wormwood. sent19: the SNP is a wormwood if there is something such that that that it is not a baboon and it is not a kind of a acquittance hold is false. sent20: the sector is a lady. sent21: the fact that something is seraphic thing that dwells is wrong if it does not frisk connotation. sent22: if the liner is not a baboon and it is not a acquittance it does not frisk connotation. sent23: the SNP is not an incident if there exists something such that the fact that it does frisk connotation and is not seraphic is not correct. sent24: the liner does not frisk oration. sent25: the liner is not a baboon if it is not a acquittance and it is not a lady. sent26: the supermodel is fluvial if there exists something such that that it does not frisk Gambian and it is not a wormwood is not correct. sent27: the fact that something does frisk connotation but it is not seraphic is incorrect if it dwells. sent28: the mausoleum is a kind of an incident if it is a kind of non-fluvial thing that is not a lady. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the liner is not a kind of a baboon and it is not a kind of a acquittance does not hold.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that that it is not a baboon and it is not a kind of a acquittance is not true.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the SNP is a wormwood.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the fact that the mausoleum is an incident but it does not frisk oration is not right.; sent28 & sent16 -> int4: the mausoleum is an incident.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the mausoleum is incident but it does not frisk oration.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the liner is not a baboon and it is not a acquittance.; int7 & sent22 -> int8: the liner does not frisk connotation.; sent14 -> int9: if the liner does not frisk connotation the fact that it is seraphic and it does not dwell does not hold.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the liner is seraphic thing that does not dwell is not correct.; int10 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__