the agapanthus is non-photochemical.
sent1: if the agapanthus is a kind of a kilt then the narrow-body is not a kilt. sent2: the narrow-body is photochemical. sent3: the fact that the fact that something is a kind of a kilt that is consistent hold does not hold if it is not a kind of a councillor. sent4: the narrow-body is a kilt that is photochemical. sent5: the agapanthus is a councillor but it is not consistent if the narrow-body is consistent. sent6: the narrow-body is a kind of consistent thing that is a kilt. sent7: if something is a kind of a councillor it is photochemical. sent8: the narrow-body is a kind of a kilt. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a kilt but it is not photochemical is not true if it is not consistent. sent10: the agapanthus is not consistent. sent11: the strait is nontechnical thing that is consistent. sent12: the fact that if the runt is not a kind of a Sutherland then the narrow-body is not a councillor is not false. sent13: the narrow-body is a kind of nontechnical thing that is not a Khoisan. sent14: the agapanthus is consistent if it is a kilt. sent15: the agapanthus does betray and it does hunger PFLP. sent16: the agapanthus is a sapremia but it is not a solvability. sent17: the narrow-body is occupational but it is not capitalistic. sent18: the sneak is consistent but it does not bed. sent19: the agapanthus is not consistent if the narrow-body is consistent.
sent6 -> int1: the narrow-body is consistent.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the agapanthus is both a councillor and not consistent.; int2 -> int3: the agapanthus is a councillor.; sent7 -> int4: if the fact that the agapanthus is a kind of a councillor hold then it is photochemical.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the agapanthus is not photochemical.
sent3 -> int5: the fact that the narrow-body is a kilt and it is consistent is incorrect if it is not a councillor.;
$hypothesis$ = the agapanthus is non-photochemical. ; $context$ = sent1: if the agapanthus is a kind of a kilt then the narrow-body is not a kilt. sent2: the narrow-body is photochemical. sent3: the fact that the fact that something is a kind of a kilt that is consistent hold does not hold if it is not a kind of a councillor. sent4: the narrow-body is a kilt that is photochemical. sent5: the agapanthus is a councillor but it is not consistent if the narrow-body is consistent. sent6: the narrow-body is a kind of consistent thing that is a kilt. sent7: if something is a kind of a councillor it is photochemical. sent8: the narrow-body is a kind of a kilt. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a kilt but it is not photochemical is not true if it is not consistent. sent10: the agapanthus is not consistent. sent11: the strait is nontechnical thing that is consistent. sent12: the fact that if the runt is not a kind of a Sutherland then the narrow-body is not a councillor is not false. sent13: the narrow-body is a kind of nontechnical thing that is not a Khoisan. sent14: the agapanthus is consistent if it is a kilt. sent15: the agapanthus does betray and it does hunger PFLP. sent16: the agapanthus is a sapremia but it is not a solvability. sent17: the narrow-body is occupational but it is not capitalistic. sent18: the sneak is consistent but it does not bed. sent19: the agapanthus is not consistent if the narrow-body is consistent. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the narrow-body is consistent.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the agapanthus is both a councillor and not consistent.; int2 -> int3: the agapanthus is a councillor.; sent7 -> int4: if the fact that the agapanthus is a kind of a councillor hold then it is photochemical.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__