the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is not a commensal and it is a Wallenstein does not hold is not right.
sent1: the saxifrage is not servomechanical but it couples. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it does carol Ammotragus and it is archangelic is not true. sent3: if the fireman is Mishnaic thing that carols Ammotragus the saxifrage does not carols Ammotragus. sent4: if the fireman is a commensal then the saxifrage carols Ammotragus. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it does carol Ammotragus and it is archangelic is incorrect the fireman does not carol Ammotragus. sent6: the fact that the saxifrage is commensal thing that is a Wallenstein is incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not archangelic and/or it is not spineless is right does not hold if that it is not a collected is true. sent8: something is not spineless and does carol Ammotragus. sent9: if the fact that the saxifrage is spineless is true then the fireman does carol Ammotragus. sent10: if the fireman is not commensal but spineless then it carols Ammotragus. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not geographic but propitious is wrong. sent12: the iproclozide is not a commensal. sent13: the fireman is not valid. sent14: the fact that the fireman does carol Ammotragus is not wrong if it is a Wallenstein and spineless. sent15: if the saxifrage is a kind of non-commensal a Wallenstein then it is spineless. sent16: if something does not lurch avocado the saxifrage does not lurch avocado. sent17: that the fireman is not spineless is true if the fact that the cruiserweight is not archangelic and/or it is not spineless does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the saxifrage is a kind of non-commensal a Wallenstein.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the saxifrage is spineless.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fireman carols Ammotragus.; sent2 & sent5 -> int3: the fireman does not carol Ammotragus.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the saxifrage is not commensal but it is a Wallenstein is false.; int5 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the hygrometer is non-commensal thing that is a daisybush is incorrect.
sent7 -> int6: if the cruiserweight does not collect then the fact that it is not archangelic or not spineless or both does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is not a commensal and it is a Wallenstein does not hold is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the saxifrage is not servomechanical but it couples. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it does carol Ammotragus and it is archangelic is not true. sent3: if the fireman is Mishnaic thing that carols Ammotragus the saxifrage does not carols Ammotragus. sent4: if the fireman is a commensal then the saxifrage carols Ammotragus. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it does carol Ammotragus and it is archangelic is incorrect the fireman does not carol Ammotragus. sent6: the fact that the saxifrage is commensal thing that is a Wallenstein is incorrect. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is not archangelic and/or it is not spineless is right does not hold if that it is not a collected is true. sent8: something is not spineless and does carol Ammotragus. sent9: if the fact that the saxifrage is spineless is true then the fireman does carol Ammotragus. sent10: if the fireman is not commensal but spineless then it carols Ammotragus. sent11: there is something such that the fact that it is not geographic but propitious is wrong. sent12: the iproclozide is not a commensal. sent13: the fireman is not valid. sent14: the fact that the fireman does carol Ammotragus is not wrong if it is a Wallenstein and spineless. sent15: if the saxifrage is a kind of non-commensal a Wallenstein then it is spineless. sent16: if something does not lurch avocado the saxifrage does not lurch avocado. sent17: that the fireman is not spineless is true if the fact that the cruiserweight is not archangelic and/or it is not spineless does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the saxifrage is a kind of non-commensal a Wallenstein.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the saxifrage is spineless.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fireman carols Ammotragus.; sent2 & sent5 -> int3: the fireman does not carol Ammotragus.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the saxifrage is not commensal but it is a Wallenstein is false.; int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__