the fact that the mutterer does hoodoo silviculture and does hoodoo Aegyptopithecus is not correct.
sent1: the moussaka is not monoclinic. sent2: the seaport is a ferritin. sent3: the fact that the seaport does not down theodicy and is a kind of a sisterhood is not true if it is not a kind of a Tussaud. sent4: a non-superficial thing that is fungal does not hoodoo silviculture. sent5: if something is not a ferritin then the fact that the seaport is superficial and fungal does not hold. sent6: the fact that the moussaka does not hoodoo silviculture is not incorrect if there exists something such that that it is superficial and is fungal is not correct. sent7: the moussaka is branchless. sent8: the rubberneck is not a ferritin and it is not monoclinic if it is branchless. sent9: if the Aegyptopithecus does photosensitize moussaka the rubberneck is branchless. sent10: if the fact that the mutterer is fungal hold then the moussaka is not superficial. sent11: if that the mutterer is not monoclinic is not incorrect it hoodoos Aegyptopithecus. sent12: The silviculture does hoodoo mutterer. sent13: if the mutterer is not a kind of a ferritin then the moussaka is a kind of non-superficial thing that is fungal. sent14: if the mutterer is not fungal the fact that it is not branchless and is monoclinic is not right. sent15: if the mutterer is not fungal then the seaport does not hoodoo Aegyptopithecus. sent16: the moussaka is a ferritin if that it is both non-fungal and superficial is wrong. sent17: the mutterer does hoodoo Aegyptopithecus if the fact that it is not branchless and it is monoclinic is not right. sent18: the seaport is not a kind of a ferritin if that the moussaka is not superficial is not incorrect. sent19: the mutterer does hoodoo silviculture. sent20: the Aegyptopithecus photosensitizes moussaka and is a kind of a pachuco.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mutterer is fungal.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: that the moussaka is not superficial hold.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the seaport is not a ferritin.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the mutterer is not fungal.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the fact that the mutterer is a kind of non-branchless thing that is monoclinic is not true.; int5 & sent17 -> int6: the mutterer hoodoos Aegyptopithecus.; int6 & sent19 -> hypothesis;
that the mutterer does hoodoo silviculture and hoodoos Aegyptopithecus is incorrect.
sent20 -> int7: the Aegyptopithecus photosensitizes moussaka.; sent9 & int7 -> int8: the rubberneck is branchless.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the rubberneck is not a ferritin and is non-monoclinic.; int9 -> int10: the rubberneck is not a ferritin.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a ferritin.; int11 & sent5 -> int12: the fact that the seaport is both superficial and fungal is not right.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that that it is superficial thing that is fungal is not true.; int13 & sent6 -> int14: the moussaka does not hoodoo silviculture.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that the fact that it does not hoodoo silviculture is right.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the mutterer does hoodoo silviculture and does hoodoo Aegyptopithecus is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the moussaka is not monoclinic. sent2: the seaport is a ferritin. sent3: the fact that the seaport does not down theodicy and is a kind of a sisterhood is not true if it is not a kind of a Tussaud. sent4: a non-superficial thing that is fungal does not hoodoo silviculture. sent5: if something is not a ferritin then the fact that the seaport is superficial and fungal does not hold. sent6: the fact that the moussaka does not hoodoo silviculture is not incorrect if there exists something such that that it is superficial and is fungal is not correct. sent7: the moussaka is branchless. sent8: the rubberneck is not a ferritin and it is not monoclinic if it is branchless. sent9: if the Aegyptopithecus does photosensitize moussaka the rubberneck is branchless. sent10: if the fact that the mutterer is fungal hold then the moussaka is not superficial. sent11: if that the mutterer is not monoclinic is not incorrect it hoodoos Aegyptopithecus. sent12: The silviculture does hoodoo mutterer. sent13: if the mutterer is not a kind of a ferritin then the moussaka is a kind of non-superficial thing that is fungal. sent14: if the mutterer is not fungal the fact that it is not branchless and is monoclinic is not right. sent15: if the mutterer is not fungal then the seaport does not hoodoo Aegyptopithecus. sent16: the moussaka is a ferritin if that it is both non-fungal and superficial is wrong. sent17: the mutterer does hoodoo Aegyptopithecus if the fact that it is not branchless and it is monoclinic is not right. sent18: the seaport is not a kind of a ferritin if that the moussaka is not superficial is not incorrect. sent19: the mutterer does hoodoo silviculture. sent20: the Aegyptopithecus photosensitizes moussaka and is a kind of a pachuco. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the mutterer is fungal.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: that the moussaka is not superficial hold.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the seaport is not a ferritin.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the mutterer is not fungal.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the fact that the mutterer is a kind of non-branchless thing that is monoclinic is not true.; int5 & sent17 -> int6: the mutterer hoodoos Aegyptopithecus.; int6 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__