the madam is not macerative but it unmakes tumor.
sent1: if something does not interrelate desquamation and/or it does not unmake protist it is nonaddictive. sent2: the reflation does not unmake Maoist and it is not zymoid if something is nonaddictive. sent3: the desquamation does not interrelate desquamation and/or it does unmake protist. sent4: the Amazon shucks if there is something such that the fact that either it interrelates desquamation or it does not unmake protist or both is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that that it shucks and it is a honeycomb is false then the Amazon does not shucks. sent6: if the reflation is not zymoid the fact that the madam is non-macerative thing that unmakes tumor is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that that it does shuck and is a kind of a honeycomb is not right. sent8: something interrelates desquamation. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is not nonaddictive and it is macerative does not hold the madam is not macerative. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it either does not interrelate desquamation or does not unmake protist or both is wrong then that the Amazon does shuck is not wrong. sent11: if something does not shuck then the Amazon does not shuck. sent12: if the Amazon is not a honeycomb the fact that it is not nonaddictive but macerative is not right. sent13: that the madam is macerative and it unmakes tumor is false if the reflation is not zymoid.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that either the desquamation does not interrelate desquamation or it does not unmake protist or both does not hold.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it does not interrelate desquamation and/or it does not unmake protist is not correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the Amazon does shuck.; sent7 & sent5 -> int3: the fact that the Amazon does not shuck hold.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the desquamation either does not interrelate desquamation or does not unmake protist or both.; sent1 -> int6: that if either the desquamation does not interrelate desquamation or it does not unmake protist or both then the desquamation is nonaddictive is not wrong.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the desquamation is nonaddictive.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is nonaddictive.; int8 & sent2 -> int9: the reflation does not unmake Maoist and it is not zymoid.; int9 -> int10: the fact that the reflation is not zymoid is not wrong.; int10 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
the madam is not macerative but it does unmake tumor.
$hypothesis$ = the madam is not macerative but it unmakes tumor. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not interrelate desquamation and/or it does not unmake protist it is nonaddictive. sent2: the reflation does not unmake Maoist and it is not zymoid if something is nonaddictive. sent3: the desquamation does not interrelate desquamation and/or it does unmake protist. sent4: the Amazon shucks if there is something such that the fact that either it interrelates desquamation or it does not unmake protist or both is not correct. sent5: if there exists something such that that it shucks and it is a honeycomb is false then the Amazon does not shucks. sent6: if the reflation is not zymoid the fact that the madam is non-macerative thing that unmakes tumor is not correct. sent7: there exists something such that that it does shuck and is a kind of a honeycomb is not right. sent8: something interrelates desquamation. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is not nonaddictive and it is macerative does not hold the madam is not macerative. sent10: if there is something such that the fact that it either does not interrelate desquamation or does not unmake protist or both is wrong then that the Amazon does shuck is not wrong. sent11: if something does not shuck then the Amazon does not shuck. sent12: if the Amazon is not a honeycomb the fact that it is not nonaddictive but macerative is not right. sent13: that the madam is macerative and it unmakes tumor is false if the reflation is not zymoid. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that either the desquamation does not interrelate desquamation or it does not unmake protist or both does not hold.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it does not interrelate desquamation and/or it does not unmake protist is not correct.; int1 & sent10 -> int2: the Amazon does shuck.; sent7 & sent5 -> int3: the fact that the Amazon does not shuck hold.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the desquamation either does not interrelate desquamation or does not unmake protist or both.; sent1 -> int6: that if either the desquamation does not interrelate desquamation or it does not unmake protist or both then the desquamation is nonaddictive is not wrong.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the desquamation is nonaddictive.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is nonaddictive.; int8 & sent2 -> int9: the reflation does not unmake Maoist and it is not zymoid.; int9 -> int10: the fact that the reflation is not zymoid is not wrong.; int10 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__