the sloe does not exclude anxiousness.
sent1: if the bidet does not revenge then it does not tarnish aging and is unassertive. sent2: if the sloe does not tarnish aging the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging and is unassertive is wrong. sent3: if the cymbid is euclidian the balmoral is aerological. sent4: if the broadax is cross-linguistic then the fact that the balmoral is a speakership is not wrong. sent5: if the fact that something is not cross-linguistic but a feed does not hold then it is cross-linguistic. sent6: if something does not exclude anxiousness it does not revenge. sent7: the bidet does not tarnish aging if there is something such that it is unassertive. sent8: if that the broadax is azotic is correct the balmoral is a speakership. sent9: something does not tarnish aging if the fact that it does not exclude anxiousness is right. sent10: that the aardvark is not cross-linguistic but a feed is false if it is not euclidian. sent11: the aardvark is not euclidian. sent12: if the broadax is aerological and/or it is a speakership then the balmoral is not unassertive. sent13: the broadax is not a feed. sent14: the cymbid is not non-cross-linguistic or is azotic or both if something is non-cross-linguistic. sent15: that the bidet does not revenge is not wrong. sent16: if something does not feed then it is cross-linguistic and/or is azotic. sent17: the cleanser is not assertive if there exists something such that it is a kind of a speakership and it is aerological. sent18: the cymbid is euclidian and it is a kind of a frontbencher. sent19: if the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging but it excludes anxiousness is false then the sloe does not excludes anxiousness. sent20: the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging and excludes anxiousness is not correct if the cleanser does not revenge.
sent9 -> int1: if the sloe does not exclude anxiousness the fact that it does not tarnish aging is not false.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sloe does not exclude anxiousness.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the sloe does not tarnish aging is not wrong.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: that the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging and is unassertive is wrong hold.; sent1 & sent15 -> int4: the bidet does not tarnish aging but it is unassertive.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the sloe does not revenge.
sent16 -> int6: if the broadax does not feed then it is cross-linguistic or it is not non-azotic or both.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the broadax is cross-linguistic and/or it is azotic.; int7 & sent4 & sent8 -> int8: the balmoral is a speakership.; sent18 -> int9: the cymbid is euclidian.; sent3 & int9 -> int10: the balmoral is aerological.; int8 & int10 -> int11: the balmoral is a speakership and aerological.; int11 -> int12: something is a speakership and it is aerological.; int12 & sent17 -> int13: the cleanser is unassertive.; int13 -> int14: there exists something such that it is unassertive.; int14 & sent7 -> int15: the bidet does not tarnish aging.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that it does not tarnish aging.; sent6 -> int17: if the sloe does not exclude anxiousness then it does not revenge.;
$hypothesis$ = the sloe does not exclude anxiousness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bidet does not revenge then it does not tarnish aging and is unassertive. sent2: if the sloe does not tarnish aging the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging and is unassertive is wrong. sent3: if the cymbid is euclidian the balmoral is aerological. sent4: if the broadax is cross-linguistic then the fact that the balmoral is a speakership is not wrong. sent5: if the fact that something is not cross-linguistic but a feed does not hold then it is cross-linguistic. sent6: if something does not exclude anxiousness it does not revenge. sent7: the bidet does not tarnish aging if there is something such that it is unassertive. sent8: if that the broadax is azotic is correct the balmoral is a speakership. sent9: something does not tarnish aging if the fact that it does not exclude anxiousness is right. sent10: that the aardvark is not cross-linguistic but a feed is false if it is not euclidian. sent11: the aardvark is not euclidian. sent12: if the broadax is aerological and/or it is a speakership then the balmoral is not unassertive. sent13: the broadax is not a feed. sent14: the cymbid is not non-cross-linguistic or is azotic or both if something is non-cross-linguistic. sent15: that the bidet does not revenge is not wrong. sent16: if something does not feed then it is cross-linguistic and/or is azotic. sent17: the cleanser is not assertive if there exists something such that it is a kind of a speakership and it is aerological. sent18: the cymbid is euclidian and it is a kind of a frontbencher. sent19: if the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging but it excludes anxiousness is false then the sloe does not excludes anxiousness. sent20: the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging and excludes anxiousness is not correct if the cleanser does not revenge. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: if the sloe does not exclude anxiousness the fact that it does not tarnish aging is not false.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sloe does not exclude anxiousness.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the sloe does not tarnish aging is not wrong.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: that the fact that the bidet does not tarnish aging and is unassertive is wrong hold.; sent1 & sent15 -> int4: the bidet does not tarnish aging but it is unassertive.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__