that the contrail is not a unevenness but a caboose is not right.
sent1: the fact that the contrail is non-bacteriolytic thing that is catapultic is false. sent2: something that is a kind of a male is not catapultic and not bacteriolytic. sent3: if the fact that the contrail is a kind of non-bacteriolytic thing that is catapultic is not right then it is a caboose. sent4: if the vandyke remonstrates hardbake and is octal then the fact that the contrail is not a unevenness is right. sent5: the contrail is a caboose if it is not catapultic. sent6: the vandyke is not octal. sent7: the vandyke remonstrates hardbake but it is not octal. sent8: that the contrail is unpalatable is not false. sent9: the aniline is not octal. sent10: the vandyke is not a unevenness if the contrail is a kind of octal thing that does not remonstrate hardbake. sent11: the contrail is not catapultic if the vandyke is a kind of a caboose but it does not remonstrate hardbake. sent12: the contrail does not remonstrate hardbake if the vandyke is a unevenness and not octal. sent13: if the fact that the contrail does not remonstrate hardbake and is penitent does not hold then it remonstrates usufruct. sent14: that something is not a unevenness but it is a kind of a caboose is not correct if it is not bacteriolytic. sent15: the fact that the vandyke is not a caboose is true. sent16: that the contrail is a kind of non-bacteriolytic thing that does remonstrate hardbake does not hold. sent17: the contrail is not a unevenness if the vandyke does remonstrate hardbake and is non-octal. sent18: the vandyke is a kind of a unevenness.
sent17 & sent7 -> int1: the contrail is not a unevenness.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the contrail is a caboose.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
that the contrail is not a unevenness but it is a caboose is not correct.
sent14 -> int3: the fact that the contrail is both not a unevenness and a caboose is incorrect if it is not bacteriolytic.; sent2 -> int4: if the contrail is a kind of a male then it is not catapultic and it is not bacteriolytic.;
$hypothesis$ = that the contrail is not a unevenness but a caboose is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the contrail is non-bacteriolytic thing that is catapultic is false. sent2: something that is a kind of a male is not catapultic and not bacteriolytic. sent3: if the fact that the contrail is a kind of non-bacteriolytic thing that is catapultic is not right then it is a caboose. sent4: if the vandyke remonstrates hardbake and is octal then the fact that the contrail is not a unevenness is right. sent5: the contrail is a caboose if it is not catapultic. sent6: the vandyke is not octal. sent7: the vandyke remonstrates hardbake but it is not octal. sent8: that the contrail is unpalatable is not false. sent9: the aniline is not octal. sent10: the vandyke is not a unevenness if the contrail is a kind of octal thing that does not remonstrate hardbake. sent11: the contrail is not catapultic if the vandyke is a kind of a caboose but it does not remonstrate hardbake. sent12: the contrail does not remonstrate hardbake if the vandyke is a unevenness and not octal. sent13: if the fact that the contrail does not remonstrate hardbake and is penitent does not hold then it remonstrates usufruct. sent14: that something is not a unevenness but it is a kind of a caboose is not correct if it is not bacteriolytic. sent15: the fact that the vandyke is not a caboose is true. sent16: that the contrail is a kind of non-bacteriolytic thing that does remonstrate hardbake does not hold. sent17: the contrail is not a unevenness if the vandyke does remonstrate hardbake and is non-octal. sent18: the vandyke is a kind of a unevenness. ; $proof$ = 
sent17 & sent7 -> int1: the contrail is not a unevenness.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the contrail is a caboose.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__