that the graffito does impinge purist hold.
sent1: the orthodontist takes and it is a Bellingham. sent2: something that does not stave silvex and is a kind of a colloid is not a minimalist. sent3: the graffito is iliac and does not blacklist imaging. sent4: something is a take and does blacklist Diodon if it is not a minimalist. sent5: that if that something is a kind of non-Merovingian thing that is not a Proterozoic does not hold then it is not a Sister is right. sent6: the purist is hemiparasitic but it does not impinge purist. sent7: if something rehearses the cracking is not actuarial. sent8: the graffito does impinge millet. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a panicled. sent10: if there is something such that it does not blacklist Diodon then the cracking does not stave silvex. sent11: if the existentialist is not xerographic and/or it does not impinge purist then that the graffito impinge purist is true. sent12: the existentialist is not xerographic if the graffito takes and impinges purist. sent13: the fact that something is a kind of a colloid and is a kind of a permissibility is false if it does not impinge purist. sent14: something staves silvex and is not a kind of a colloid if the fact that it is not a panicled is not false. sent15: something either is non-xerographic or does not impinge purist or both if it is a take. sent16: the fact that the cracking does not stave silvex hold if there exists something such that that it blacklists Diodon and it is a kind of a minimalist is false. sent17: the graffito is a take if it is iliac and it does not blacklist imaging. sent18: that if the graffito is xerographic but it is not a take then the dissimilation does not impinge purist is not false. sent19: if the existentialist is not xerographic that the fact that the discussant does blacklist Diodon and it is a minimalist does not hold is not false. sent20: the existentialist is not a colloid if the babka is xerographic and is a kind of a panicled. sent21: the Fugo is a panicled. sent22: if the babka staves silvex and is not a colloid the cracking does staves silvex. sent23: there is something such that it does rehearse. sent24: the fact that that the cracking is not a Merovingian and it is not a Proterozoic is correct is not correct if that it is not actuarial is true. sent25: if something is not a kind of a panicled then either the discussant is not a kind of a panicled or it does not stave silvex or both. sent26: there exists something such that it does blacklist Diodon and it is a minimalist. sent27: the babka is not a panicled if the Fugo is a panicled. sent28: the Fugo does include and is thirsty. sent29: the existentialist does not stave silvex if the discussant is not a panicled or it does not stave silvex or both.
sent17 & sent3 -> int1: the graffito takes.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the graffito impinges purist hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the graffito takes and it impinges purist.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the existentialist is not xerographic.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the fact that the discussant does blacklist Diodon and is a kind of a minimalist is not right.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it blacklists Diodon and it is a kind of a minimalist does not hold.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: that the cracking does not stave silvex is not incorrect.; sent14 -> int7: if the fact that the babka is not a panicled hold then it does stave silvex and it is not a colloid.; sent27 & sent21 -> int8: the babka is not a kind of a panicled.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the babka does stave silvex and is not a colloid.; sent22 & int9 -> int10: that the cracking does stave silvex is right.; int6 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the dissimilation is a colloid and it is a permissibility is false.
sent13 -> int12: that the dissimilation is a colloid and is a permissibility is incorrect if it does not impinge purist.;
$hypothesis$ = that the graffito does impinge purist hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the orthodontist takes and it is a Bellingham. sent2: something that does not stave silvex and is a kind of a colloid is not a minimalist. sent3: the graffito is iliac and does not blacklist imaging. sent4: something is a take and does blacklist Diodon if it is not a minimalist. sent5: that if that something is a kind of non-Merovingian thing that is not a Proterozoic does not hold then it is not a Sister is right. sent6: the purist is hemiparasitic but it does not impinge purist. sent7: if something rehearses the cracking is not actuarial. sent8: the graffito does impinge millet. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a panicled. sent10: if there is something such that it does not blacklist Diodon then the cracking does not stave silvex. sent11: if the existentialist is not xerographic and/or it does not impinge purist then that the graffito impinge purist is true. sent12: the existentialist is not xerographic if the graffito takes and impinges purist. sent13: the fact that something is a kind of a colloid and is a kind of a permissibility is false if it does not impinge purist. sent14: something staves silvex and is not a kind of a colloid if the fact that it is not a panicled is not false. sent15: something either is non-xerographic or does not impinge purist or both if it is a take. sent16: the fact that the cracking does not stave silvex hold if there exists something such that that it blacklists Diodon and it is a kind of a minimalist is false. sent17: the graffito is a take if it is iliac and it does not blacklist imaging. sent18: that if the graffito is xerographic but it is not a take then the dissimilation does not impinge purist is not false. sent19: if the existentialist is not xerographic that the fact that the discussant does blacklist Diodon and it is a minimalist does not hold is not false. sent20: the existentialist is not a colloid if the babka is xerographic and is a kind of a panicled. sent21: the Fugo is a panicled. sent22: if the babka staves silvex and is not a colloid the cracking does staves silvex. sent23: there is something such that it does rehearse. sent24: the fact that that the cracking is not a Merovingian and it is not a Proterozoic is correct is not correct if that it is not actuarial is true. sent25: if something is not a kind of a panicled then either the discussant is not a kind of a panicled or it does not stave silvex or both. sent26: there exists something such that it does blacklist Diodon and it is a minimalist. sent27: the babka is not a panicled if the Fugo is a panicled. sent28: the Fugo does include and is thirsty. sent29: the existentialist does not stave silvex if the discussant is not a panicled or it does not stave silvex or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent17 & sent3 -> int1: the graffito takes.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the graffito impinges purist hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the graffito takes and it impinges purist.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the existentialist is not xerographic.; int3 & sent19 -> int4: the fact that the discussant does blacklist Diodon and is a kind of a minimalist is not right.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it blacklists Diodon and it is a kind of a minimalist does not hold.; int5 & sent16 -> int6: that the cracking does not stave silvex is not incorrect.; sent14 -> int7: if the fact that the babka is not a panicled hold then it does stave silvex and it is not a colloid.; sent27 & sent21 -> int8: the babka is not a kind of a panicled.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the babka does stave silvex and is not a colloid.; sent22 & int9 -> int10: that the cracking does stave silvex is right.; int6 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__