the fact that if the testator does sparkle the testator does announce radiographer but it is not a Soricidae is false.
sent1: the testator is a recoil. sent2: the sodium does not announce squama and does not tribulate Martinique. sent3: if something announces radiographer then that that it is not inefficacious is not right is not wrong. sent4: the testator does tribulate chartist. sent5: that the testator does sparkle and clamors affairs does not hold. sent6: if that the testator is not a Soricidae but inefficacious is not right it is not a kind of a sparkle. sent7: the testator does not monopolize twinkling if that it does not clamor sodium and it is a kind of a ecclesiasticism is not correct. sent8: that the amaretto does not presume but it does immigrate is not correct. sent9: the testator is not a whaler. sent10: if the testator is not a kind of a layer then the fact that it creeps is not false. sent11: the Bailey is a sparkle. sent12: if that the testator is not a whaler hold it does monopolize Urd and it does announce radiographer. sent13: the recovery does not monopolize Urd.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the testator is not a Soricidae but it is inefficacious does not hold.; sent6 & assump2 -> int1: the testator is not a sparkle.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the testator is a sparkle.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the testator is both not a Soricidae and not efficacious.; int3 -> int4: the testator is not a Soricidae.; sent12 & sent9 -> int5: the testator monopolizes Urd and announces radiographer.; int5 -> int6: that the testator does announce radiographer hold.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the testator does announce radiographer but it is not a kind of a Soricidae.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the doughnut is inefficacious.
sent3 -> int8: the doughnut is inefficacious if it does announce radiographer.; sent2 -> int9: something does not announce squama and does not tribulate Martinique.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the testator does sparkle the testator does announce radiographer but it is not a Soricidae is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the testator is a recoil. sent2: the sodium does not announce squama and does not tribulate Martinique. sent3: if something announces radiographer then that that it is not inefficacious is not right is not wrong. sent4: the testator does tribulate chartist. sent5: that the testator does sparkle and clamors affairs does not hold. sent6: if that the testator is not a Soricidae but inefficacious is not right it is not a kind of a sparkle. sent7: the testator does not monopolize twinkling if that it does not clamor sodium and it is a kind of a ecclesiasticism is not correct. sent8: that the amaretto does not presume but it does immigrate is not correct. sent9: the testator is not a whaler. sent10: if the testator is not a kind of a layer then the fact that it creeps is not false. sent11: the Bailey is a sparkle. sent12: if that the testator is not a whaler hold it does monopolize Urd and it does announce radiographer. sent13: the recovery does not monopolize Urd. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the testator is not a Soricidae but it is inefficacious does not hold.; sent6 & assump2 -> int1: the testator is not a sparkle.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the testator is a sparkle.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the testator is both not a Soricidae and not efficacious.; int3 -> int4: the testator is not a Soricidae.; sent12 & sent9 -> int5: the testator monopolizes Urd and announces radiographer.; int5 -> int6: that the testator does announce radiographer hold.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the testator does announce radiographer but it is not a kind of a Soricidae.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__