the Northeast does own brucine but it does not riposte Broussonetia.
sent1: if the land is not a kind of a watermelon then the fact that the dough is psychotherapeutic but it does not formalize naphthalene does not hold. sent2: the land is not a watermelon if the Northeast does own brucine and it ripostes Broussonetia. sent3: if the Northeast owns brucine but it does not riposte Broussonetia then the land is not a kind of a watermelon. sent4: the Northeast is psychotherapeutic. sent5: the dough does riposte Broussonetia but it does not formalize naphthalene. sent6: the dough is a cobalamin. sent7: if that the dough does not own brucine is not incorrect the fact that the Northeast ripostes Broussonetia and does not formalize naphthalene is incorrect. sent8: the fact that the Northeast ripostes Broussonetia but it is not a watermelon is wrong. sent9: the dough is psychotherapeutic and does not formalize naphthalene if it is a cobalamin. sent10: the dough does riposte spiciness. sent11: the Northeast does own brucine but it does not riposte Broussonetia if the land formalizes naphthalene. sent12: that the Northeast does riposte Broussonetia and it is a cobalamin is not true. sent13: the Northeast is a kind of a watermelon that does not riposte Broussonetia.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Northeast does own brucine and does not riposte Broussonetia.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the land is not a kind of a watermelon.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the dough is psychotherapeutic and does not formalize naphthalene is incorrect.; sent9 & sent6 -> int3: the dough is psychotherapeutic and does not formalize naphthalene.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the Northeast does own brucine but it does not riposte Broussonetia.
$hypothesis$ = the Northeast does own brucine but it does not riposte Broussonetia. ; $context$ = sent1: if the land is not a kind of a watermelon then the fact that the dough is psychotherapeutic but it does not formalize naphthalene does not hold. sent2: the land is not a watermelon if the Northeast does own brucine and it ripostes Broussonetia. sent3: if the Northeast owns brucine but it does not riposte Broussonetia then the land is not a kind of a watermelon. sent4: the Northeast is psychotherapeutic. sent5: the dough does riposte Broussonetia but it does not formalize naphthalene. sent6: the dough is a cobalamin. sent7: if that the dough does not own brucine is not incorrect the fact that the Northeast ripostes Broussonetia and does not formalize naphthalene is incorrect. sent8: the fact that the Northeast ripostes Broussonetia but it is not a watermelon is wrong. sent9: the dough is psychotherapeutic and does not formalize naphthalene if it is a cobalamin. sent10: the dough does riposte spiciness. sent11: the Northeast does own brucine but it does not riposte Broussonetia if the land formalizes naphthalene. sent12: that the Northeast does riposte Broussonetia and it is a cobalamin is not true. sent13: the Northeast is a kind of a watermelon that does not riposte Broussonetia. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Northeast does own brucine and does not riposte Broussonetia.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the land is not a kind of a watermelon.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: that the dough is psychotherapeutic and does not formalize naphthalene is incorrect.; sent9 & sent6 -> int3: the dough is psychotherapeutic and does not formalize naphthalene.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__