that if the ommatidium is a kind of a compact then the niobite is not a skipjack and it is not a kind of a barnburner is not correct.
sent1: if that something is a skipjack and is not compact does not hold it is not a bombproof. sent2: if the ommatidium does not bombproof and does not stiffen the khamsin does stiffen. sent3: the niobite is not a barnburner if the housing is not a kind of a barnburner but it batches ommatidium. sent4: the fact that the ruga is incorrupt and it batches ecarte is wrong. sent5: the housing is not a barnburner and batches ommatidium. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not wieldy and it is a Jerome is wrong then the niobite does not batch ommatidium. sent7: there are non-incorrupt things. sent8: the housing does not batch ecarte and it is not a Bostonian. sent9: the niobite is not a barnburner if the housing is a barnburner and it batches ommatidium. sent10: the ommatidium is not a compact if something that is incorrupt batches ecarte. sent11: if something is not a skipjack then the fact that the ommatidium is a skipjack but it is not a compact is wrong. sent12: that the fact that the housing is a kind of non-wieldy thing that is a Jerome does not hold is correct. sent13: the ruga does batch ptyalith. sent14: the housing is not a kind of a barnburner. sent15: if something is not incorrupt and does batch ecarte then the ommatidium is a kind of a compact. sent16: the ruga does not bombproof if that it is not incorrupt and does batch ecarte does not hold. sent17: if the niobite either is a barnburner or does batch ptyalith or both then the ommatidium does not stiffen. sent18: if the ruga is incorrupt it is not a kind of a bombproof. sent19: the fact that the niobite does batch ptyalith and it does bombproof is incorrect if the ruga does not bombproof. sent20: the fact that the ommatidium is not a kind of a barnburner hold if that it is a kind of non-compact thing that is incorrupt is not right. sent21: the ptyalith is not a skipjack. sent22: the niobite is not a skipjack if it is not a bombproof. sent23: the ommatidium is not a kind of a compact if a non-incorrupt thing batches ecarte. sent24: if the fact that the niobite batches ptyalith and it does bombproof is not correct it is not a skipjack. sent25: the ruga is not incorrupt.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the ruga is not incorrupt but it does batch ecarte.; assump2 -> int1: something is a kind of corrupt thing that batches ecarte.; int1 & sent23 -> int2: the ommatidium is not a kind of a compact.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the ommatidium is a compact hold.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: that the ruga is not incorrupt but it does batch ecarte is not true.; int4 & sent16 -> int5: the ruga is not a kind of a bombproof.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the fact that the niobite does batch ptyalith and is a kind of a bombproof is not right.; int6 & sent24 -> int7: the niobite is not a skipjack.; sent3 & sent5 -> int8: that the niobite is not a kind of a barnburner is not false.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the niobite is not a skipjack and not a barnburner.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the khamsin stiffens.
sent1 -> int10: that the ommatidium is not a bombproof hold if that it is a skipjack and is not a compact does not hold.; sent21 -> int11: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a skipjack.; int11 & sent11 -> int12: that the ommatidium is a skipjack that is not a compact is incorrect.; int10 & int12 -> int13: the ommatidium does not bombproof.; sent12 -> int14: there is something such that the fact that it is non-wieldy thing that is a Jerome is incorrect.; int14 & sent6 -> int15: the niobite does not batch ommatidium.;
$hypothesis$ = that if the ommatidium is a kind of a compact then the niobite is not a skipjack and it is not a kind of a barnburner is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is a skipjack and is not compact does not hold it is not a bombproof. sent2: if the ommatidium does not bombproof and does not stiffen the khamsin does stiffen. sent3: the niobite is not a barnburner if the housing is not a kind of a barnburner but it batches ommatidium. sent4: the fact that the ruga is incorrupt and it batches ecarte is wrong. sent5: the housing is not a barnburner and batches ommatidium. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not wieldy and it is a Jerome is wrong then the niobite does not batch ommatidium. sent7: there are non-incorrupt things. sent8: the housing does not batch ecarte and it is not a Bostonian. sent9: the niobite is not a barnburner if the housing is a barnburner and it batches ommatidium. sent10: the ommatidium is not a compact if something that is incorrupt batches ecarte. sent11: if something is not a skipjack then the fact that the ommatidium is a skipjack but it is not a compact is wrong. sent12: that the fact that the housing is a kind of non-wieldy thing that is a Jerome does not hold is correct. sent13: the ruga does batch ptyalith. sent14: the housing is not a kind of a barnburner. sent15: if something is not incorrupt and does batch ecarte then the ommatidium is a kind of a compact. sent16: the ruga does not bombproof if that it is not incorrupt and does batch ecarte does not hold. sent17: if the niobite either is a barnburner or does batch ptyalith or both then the ommatidium does not stiffen. sent18: if the ruga is incorrupt it is not a kind of a bombproof. sent19: the fact that the niobite does batch ptyalith and it does bombproof is incorrect if the ruga does not bombproof. sent20: the fact that the ommatidium is not a kind of a barnburner hold if that it is a kind of non-compact thing that is incorrupt is not right. sent21: the ptyalith is not a skipjack. sent22: the niobite is not a skipjack if it is not a bombproof. sent23: the ommatidium is not a kind of a compact if a non-incorrupt thing batches ecarte. sent24: if the fact that the niobite batches ptyalith and it does bombproof is not correct it is not a skipjack. sent25: the ruga is not incorrupt. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the ruga is not incorrupt but it does batch ecarte.; assump2 -> int1: something is a kind of corrupt thing that batches ecarte.; int1 & sent23 -> int2: the ommatidium is not a kind of a compact.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the ommatidium is a compact hold.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: that the ruga is not incorrupt but it does batch ecarte is not true.; int4 & sent16 -> int5: the ruga is not a kind of a bombproof.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the fact that the niobite does batch ptyalith and is a kind of a bombproof is not right.; int6 & sent24 -> int7: the niobite is not a skipjack.; sent3 & sent5 -> int8: that the niobite is not a kind of a barnburner is not false.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the niobite is not a skipjack and not a barnburner.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__