that the poisonberry is orthotropous thing that is a Sericocarpus is wrong.
sent1: the armiger does applaud if the poisonberry strands Sporobolus but it does not applaud. sent2: if something does applaud then the fact that the tendon strands Sporobolus and it is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi is wrong. sent3: that the poisonberry does not festoon lookout and is identifiable is not correct if it is not a kind of an aspiration. sent4: if there exists something such that it applauds the fact that the tendon does not strand Sporobolus and is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi is not right. sent5: the caviar does not festoon lookout if that it is not a kind of an aspiration or it is identifiable or both is not true. sent6: something does strand Sporobolus but it does not applaud if that it is not a ezo-yama-hagi is correct. sent7: that the poisonberry festoons lookout and is identifiable is not correct if it is not an aspiration. sent8: that the tendon is non-migrational a toad-in-the-hole is not right if there is something such that it is migrational. sent9: if either the poisonberry is a toad-in-the-hole or it rends or both that it is not an aspiration is true. sent10: that if that something does not strand Sporobolus and does not applaud is wrong then it is not a Sericocarpus hold. sent11: if the armiger does festoon anesthesiology the poisonberry is orthotropous. sent12: there exists something such that it applauds. sent13: the sprocket festoons anesthesiology if it festoons lookout. sent14: if the armiger is a ezo-yama-hagi then the tendon is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi. sent15: that the poisonberry does festoon lookout and is identifiable is wrong. sent16: something that applauds is not non-migrational. sent17: if that something is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi and it festoons anesthesiology is not right it is not a ezo-yama-hagi. sent18: that the caviar is not an aspiration and/or it is identifiable is incorrect. sent19: the armiger festoons anesthesiology if that the tendon does not strand Sporobolus and is a ezo-yama-hagi is not right. sent20: the sprocket festoons lookout. sent21: the tendon is an aspiration if the poisonberry is a ezo-yama-hagi. sent22: the poisonberry is a kind of a toad-in-the-hole or it does rend or both. sent23: if the caviar does not festoon lookout the sprocket is a Sericocarpus that is not orthotropous. sent24: if that something does not festoon lookout but it is identifiable is incorrect it is a Sericocarpus.
sent12 & sent4 -> int1: that the tendon does not strand Sporobolus and is a ezo-yama-hagi is false.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the armiger festoons anesthesiology.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the poisonberry is orthotropous.; sent24 -> int4: if the fact that the poisonberry does not festoon lookout but it is identifiable is false then it is a Sericocarpus.; sent9 & sent22 -> int5: the poisonberry is not a kind of an aspiration.; sent3 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the poisonberry does not festoon lookout but it is not unidentifiable does not hold.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the poisonberry is a kind of a Sericocarpus.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis;
that the poisonberry is orthotropous and it is a Sericocarpus does not hold.
sent10 -> int8: if the fact that the tendon does not strand Sporobolus and does not applaud is incorrect it is not a Sericocarpus.; sent13 & sent20 -> int9: the sprocket does festoon anesthesiology.; int9 -> int10: something festoons anesthesiology.;
$hypothesis$ = that the poisonberry is orthotropous thing that is a Sericocarpus is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the armiger does applaud if the poisonberry strands Sporobolus but it does not applaud. sent2: if something does applaud then the fact that the tendon strands Sporobolus and it is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi is wrong. sent3: that the poisonberry does not festoon lookout and is identifiable is not correct if it is not a kind of an aspiration. sent4: if there exists something such that it applauds the fact that the tendon does not strand Sporobolus and is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi is not right. sent5: the caviar does not festoon lookout if that it is not a kind of an aspiration or it is identifiable or both is not true. sent6: something does strand Sporobolus but it does not applaud if that it is not a ezo-yama-hagi is correct. sent7: that the poisonberry festoons lookout and is identifiable is not correct if it is not an aspiration. sent8: that the tendon is non-migrational a toad-in-the-hole is not right if there is something such that it is migrational. sent9: if either the poisonberry is a toad-in-the-hole or it rends or both that it is not an aspiration is true. sent10: that if that something does not strand Sporobolus and does not applaud is wrong then it is not a Sericocarpus hold. sent11: if the armiger does festoon anesthesiology the poisonberry is orthotropous. sent12: there exists something such that it applauds. sent13: the sprocket festoons anesthesiology if it festoons lookout. sent14: if the armiger is a ezo-yama-hagi then the tendon is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi. sent15: that the poisonberry does festoon lookout and is identifiable is wrong. sent16: something that applauds is not non-migrational. sent17: if that something is a kind of a ezo-yama-hagi and it festoons anesthesiology is not right it is not a ezo-yama-hagi. sent18: that the caviar is not an aspiration and/or it is identifiable is incorrect. sent19: the armiger festoons anesthesiology if that the tendon does not strand Sporobolus and is a ezo-yama-hagi is not right. sent20: the sprocket festoons lookout. sent21: the tendon is an aspiration if the poisonberry is a ezo-yama-hagi. sent22: the poisonberry is a kind of a toad-in-the-hole or it does rend or both. sent23: if the caviar does not festoon lookout the sprocket is a Sericocarpus that is not orthotropous. sent24: if that something does not festoon lookout but it is identifiable is incorrect it is a Sericocarpus. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 & sent4 -> int1: that the tendon does not strand Sporobolus and is a ezo-yama-hagi is false.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the armiger festoons anesthesiology.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the poisonberry is orthotropous.; sent24 -> int4: if the fact that the poisonberry does not festoon lookout but it is identifiable is false then it is a Sericocarpus.; sent9 & sent22 -> int5: the poisonberry is not a kind of an aspiration.; sent3 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the poisonberry does not festoon lookout but it is not unidentifiable does not hold.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the poisonberry is a kind of a Sericocarpus.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__