the doorplate does not book.
sent1: the topiary is not a kind of an ancestor. sent2: if something that is not a illicitness shadows it is radical. sent3: if the topiary does censor the fact that the brisket does not censor and/or it is a dicumarol is wrong. sent4: if the fact that the langsat does not spoon hang-up but it is a radical does not hold the doorplate is a book. sent5: the neutralization is not an ancestor. sent6: if the fact that the mensch is radical is correct that the langsat does not spoon hang-up but it is radical is wrong. sent7: the topiary is a censor if that the mensch is not a illicitness and is a kind of a shadow does not hold. sent8: if the neutralization is not an ancestor then the brisket is not a censor or it is a kind of a dicumarol or both. sent9: the mensch is a Logan. sent10: the topiary books.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the mensch is not a illicitness but it is a shadow is not correct.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the topiary censors.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: that the brisket does not censor or is a dicumarol or both is not right.; sent8 & sent5 -> int3: the brisket does not censor and/or is a dicumarol.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the mensch is not a illicitness and is a shadow.; sent2 -> int6: if the mensch is not a kind of a illicitness and shadows it is a kind of a radical.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the mensch is a kind of a radical.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the fact that the langsat does not spoon hang-up but it is not non-radical is false.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the doorplate does not book. ; $context$ = sent1: the topiary is not a kind of an ancestor. sent2: if something that is not a illicitness shadows it is radical. sent3: if the topiary does censor the fact that the brisket does not censor and/or it is a dicumarol is wrong. sent4: if the fact that the langsat does not spoon hang-up but it is a radical does not hold the doorplate is a book. sent5: the neutralization is not an ancestor. sent6: if the fact that the mensch is radical is correct that the langsat does not spoon hang-up but it is radical is wrong. sent7: the topiary is a censor if that the mensch is not a illicitness and is a kind of a shadow does not hold. sent8: if the neutralization is not an ancestor then the brisket is not a censor or it is a kind of a dicumarol or both. sent9: the mensch is a Logan. sent10: the topiary books. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the mensch is not a illicitness but it is a shadow is not correct.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the topiary censors.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: that the brisket does not censor or is a dicumarol or both is not right.; sent8 & sent5 -> int3: the brisket does not censor and/or is a dicumarol.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the mensch is not a illicitness and is a shadow.; sent2 -> int6: if the mensch is not a kind of a illicitness and shadows it is a kind of a radical.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the mensch is a kind of a radical.; int7 & sent6 -> int8: the fact that the langsat does not spoon hang-up but it is not non-radical is false.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__