the individualist is not a kind of a napa.
sent1: The monotheism does not compel gingiva. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of non-blue-collar thing that does not service town is incorrect if it is discriminatory. sent3: if the gingiva does not compel plumbism then that it does not sprint and scents photograph is false. sent4: that the individualist does not compel monotheism but it services town is wrong. sent5: if the gingiva does not compel monotheism then the fact that it does not sprint is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the gingiva does sprint and scents photograph is incorrect. sent7: if that the gingiva does not compel monotheism is not false it does not sprint and scents photograph. sent8: the gingiva does not sprint. sent9: that the gingiva does not compel plumbism but it is blue-collar is not correct. sent10: the gingiva does not compel monotheism. sent11: the individualist is discriminatory if the gingiva does compel plumbism. sent12: the embryo is a kind of a napa if the gingiva is a kind of a napa. sent13: if the gingiva does not service town and is not blue-collar it is not discriminatory. sent14: if that the fact that the individualist is not blue-collar and it does not service town is correct does not hold then it is a kind of a napa.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gingiva does not compel plumbism.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: that the gingiva does not sprint and does scent photograph is incorrect.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the gingiva does not sprint but it scents photograph.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the gingiva compels plumbism.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the individualist is discriminatory.; sent2 -> int6: the fact that the individualist is not blue-collar and it does not service town is incorrect if it is discriminatory.; int5 & int6 -> int7: that the individualist is not blue-collar and it does not service town is incorrect.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the embryo is a napa.
$hypothesis$ = the individualist is not a kind of a napa. ; $context$ = sent1: The monotheism does not compel gingiva. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of non-blue-collar thing that does not service town is incorrect if it is discriminatory. sent3: if the gingiva does not compel plumbism then that it does not sprint and scents photograph is false. sent4: that the individualist does not compel monotheism but it services town is wrong. sent5: if the gingiva does not compel monotheism then the fact that it does not sprint is not wrong. sent6: the fact that the gingiva does sprint and scents photograph is incorrect. sent7: if that the gingiva does not compel monotheism is not false it does not sprint and scents photograph. sent8: the gingiva does not sprint. sent9: that the gingiva does not compel plumbism but it is blue-collar is not correct. sent10: the gingiva does not compel monotheism. sent11: the individualist is discriminatory if the gingiva does compel plumbism. sent12: the embryo is a kind of a napa if the gingiva is a kind of a napa. sent13: if the gingiva does not service town and is not blue-collar it is not discriminatory. sent14: if that the fact that the individualist is not blue-collar and it does not service town is correct does not hold then it is a kind of a napa. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the gingiva does not compel plumbism.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: that the gingiva does not sprint and does scent photograph is incorrect.; sent7 & sent10 -> int2: the gingiva does not sprint but it scents photograph.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the gingiva compels plumbism.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the individualist is discriminatory.; sent2 -> int6: the fact that the individualist is not blue-collar and it does not service town is incorrect if it is discriminatory.; int5 & int6 -> int7: that the individualist is not blue-collar and it does not service town is incorrect.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__