that the balmoral is non-inconsistent thing that is a Malpighi is incorrect.
sent1: the fact that the balmoral is not a surfacing and it does not swap nostrum is incorrect. sent2: if that the balmoral is not a kind of a surfacing and it does not swap nostrum is not right then it is not inconsistent. sent3: that something is a kind of non-inconsistent thing that is a Malpighi does not hold if it is not aware. sent4: the bomber is not an indicative if the balmoral is indicative thing that is inconsistent. sent5: if the scoutmaster is not a refinement it is unregenerate thing that is a kind of a Salvadoran. sent6: the balmoral is aware. sent7: if something is not a kind of an intrigue it is aware and a tinsmith. sent8: the balmoral is a kind of an indicative and it is unregenerate. sent9: if the scoutmaster is both not non-Salvadoran and aware then the balmoral is aware. sent10: if the balmoral does swap nostrum then the fact that it is not inconsistent is not wrong. sent11: the bomber is a Malpighi and a surfacing if it is not a Salvadoran. sent12: if the fact that there is something such that that it is not inconsistent and is aware is not true hold then the balmoral is inconsistent. sent13: the balmoral is a kind of a Malpighi that is aware. sent14: if the fact that that the nostrum is not a still and is not a surfacing does not hold is true then it is not a scheme.
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the balmoral is not inconsistent.; sent13 -> int2: the balmoral is a Malpighi.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
that the balmoral is consistent a Malpighi is incorrect.
sent3 -> int3: if the balmoral is not aware that it is a kind of consistent thing that is a kind of a Malpighi is wrong.; sent7 -> int4: if the scoutmaster does not intrigue then it is aware and is a kind of a tinsmith.;
$hypothesis$ = that the balmoral is non-inconsistent thing that is a Malpighi is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the balmoral is not a surfacing and it does not swap nostrum is incorrect. sent2: if that the balmoral is not a kind of a surfacing and it does not swap nostrum is not right then it is not inconsistent. sent3: that something is a kind of non-inconsistent thing that is a Malpighi does not hold if it is not aware. sent4: the bomber is not an indicative if the balmoral is indicative thing that is inconsistent. sent5: if the scoutmaster is not a refinement it is unregenerate thing that is a kind of a Salvadoran. sent6: the balmoral is aware. sent7: if something is not a kind of an intrigue it is aware and a tinsmith. sent8: the balmoral is a kind of an indicative and it is unregenerate. sent9: if the scoutmaster is both not non-Salvadoran and aware then the balmoral is aware. sent10: if the balmoral does swap nostrum then the fact that it is not inconsistent is not wrong. sent11: the bomber is a Malpighi and a surfacing if it is not a Salvadoran. sent12: if the fact that there is something such that that it is not inconsistent and is aware is not true hold then the balmoral is inconsistent. sent13: the balmoral is a kind of a Malpighi that is aware. sent14: if the fact that that the nostrum is not a still and is not a surfacing does not hold is true then it is not a scheme. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the balmoral is not inconsistent.; sent13 -> int2: the balmoral is a Malpighi.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__