the seminarian does not convert.
sent1: the irreligionist is a Citellus. sent2: if something traces golfcart the fact that it is not an uphill and it does laicize Tudor is not correct. sent3: that the olivenite is not cecal is true if the fact that the deckhand is not a Laconian and it is not a Mindanao is false. sent4: the irreligionist is non-backhanded. sent5: if something is a kind of a Laconian it is an arrangement. sent6: if the seminarian is an uphill the fact that the scold is not a kind of a Citellus and it is not a backhanded is not true. sent7: if the irreligionist is not a backhanded then it is a Citellus. sent8: something is associative and it is a woodbine. sent9: that the seminarian is a Mindanao if the deckhand is atomistic is right. sent10: that the deckhand is associative hold. sent11: that something is not a Citellus and is a backhanded is not true if it is not an uphill. sent12: the irreligionist does guarantee olivenite and does trace golfcart. sent13: the irreligionist is not a Mindanao if the fact that the patrial is not a Citellus but it is a backhanded is not right. sent14: the fact that the deckhand is cecal is right if something that is associative is not a woodbine. sent15: if the deckhand is not a kind of a Laconian it is not cecal and it is a convert. sent16: if the deckhand is cecal but not atomistic the scold is a Laconian. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a woodbine. sent18: the irreligionist is not an arrangement but it is a Citellus if it is not a kind of a backhanded. sent19: if the scold does not convert that the deckhand is not a Laconian and it is not a Mindanao is not right. sent20: something is not atomistic and is not a kind of a convert if it is not cecal. sent21: the seminarian is an uphill if that the irreligionist is not an uphill and laicizes Tudor is false. sent22: something is a convert if it is a Mindanao. sent23: the scold is not an arrangement if the irreligionist is not an arrangement and is a Citellus. sent24: there are associative things. sent25: if that something is both not a Citellus and not a backhanded is incorrect then it does not convert. sent26: that something is an arrangement and it is atomistic is not right if it is not cecal. sent27: something is associative but it is not a woodbine. sent28: if something that is not a kind of a Laconian is an arrangement the deckhand is not cecal.
sent27 & sent14 -> int1: that the deckhand is cecal is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the deckhand is not atomistic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the deckhand is cecal but it is not atomistic.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the scold is a kind of a Laconian.; sent5 -> int4: if the scold is a kind of a Laconian it is an arrangement.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the scold is a kind of an arrangement.; sent18 & sent4 -> int6: the irreligionist is not an arrangement but it is a Citellus.; sent23 & int6 -> int7: the scold is not a kind of an arrangement.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the deckhand is atomistic.; int9 & sent9 -> int10: the seminarian is a kind of a Mindanao.; sent22 -> int11: the seminarian converts if it is a Mindanao.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis;
the seminarian is not a convert.
sent20 -> int12: if that the deckhand is not cecal is not incorrect then it is not atomistic and is not a kind of a convert.; sent11 -> int13: the fact that the silversmith is not a Citellus but it is a kind of a backhanded is incorrect if it is not an uphill.;
$hypothesis$ = the seminarian does not convert. ; $context$ = sent1: the irreligionist is a Citellus. sent2: if something traces golfcart the fact that it is not an uphill and it does laicize Tudor is not correct. sent3: that the olivenite is not cecal is true if the fact that the deckhand is not a Laconian and it is not a Mindanao is false. sent4: the irreligionist is non-backhanded. sent5: if something is a kind of a Laconian it is an arrangement. sent6: if the seminarian is an uphill the fact that the scold is not a kind of a Citellus and it is not a backhanded is not true. sent7: if the irreligionist is not a backhanded then it is a Citellus. sent8: something is associative and it is a woodbine. sent9: that the seminarian is a Mindanao if the deckhand is atomistic is right. sent10: that the deckhand is associative hold. sent11: that something is not a Citellus and is a backhanded is not true if it is not an uphill. sent12: the irreligionist does guarantee olivenite and does trace golfcart. sent13: the irreligionist is not a Mindanao if the fact that the patrial is not a Citellus but it is a backhanded is not right. sent14: the fact that the deckhand is cecal is right if something that is associative is not a woodbine. sent15: if the deckhand is not a kind of a Laconian it is not cecal and it is a convert. sent16: if the deckhand is cecal but not atomistic the scold is a Laconian. sent17: there exists something such that it is not a woodbine. sent18: the irreligionist is not an arrangement but it is a Citellus if it is not a kind of a backhanded. sent19: if the scold does not convert that the deckhand is not a Laconian and it is not a Mindanao is not right. sent20: something is not atomistic and is not a kind of a convert if it is not cecal. sent21: the seminarian is an uphill if that the irreligionist is not an uphill and laicizes Tudor is false. sent22: something is a convert if it is a Mindanao. sent23: the scold is not an arrangement if the irreligionist is not an arrangement and is a Citellus. sent24: there are associative things. sent25: if that something is both not a Citellus and not a backhanded is incorrect then it does not convert. sent26: that something is an arrangement and it is atomistic is not right if it is not cecal. sent27: something is associative but it is not a woodbine. sent28: if something that is not a kind of a Laconian is an arrangement the deckhand is not cecal. ; $proof$ = 
sent27 & sent14 -> int1: that the deckhand is cecal is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the deckhand is not atomistic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the deckhand is cecal but it is not atomistic.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the scold is a kind of a Laconian.; sent5 -> int4: if the scold is a kind of a Laconian it is an arrangement.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the scold is a kind of an arrangement.; sent18 & sent4 -> int6: the irreligionist is not an arrangement but it is a Citellus.; sent23 & int6 -> int7: the scold is not a kind of an arrangement.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the deckhand is atomistic.; int9 & sent9 -> int10: the seminarian is a kind of a Mindanao.; sent22 -> int11: the seminarian converts if it is a Mindanao.; int10 & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__