the fact that the promycelium is a kind of tamed thing that is not ergotropic is incorrect.
sent1: the bun is caecilian if it is not a kind of a pocketknife. sent2: the fact that the special is sartorial but it is not omissive is not right. sent3: the wife is a kind of a pocketknife but it is not nonpsychoactive if there is something such that it is ergotropic. sent4: something is botulinal and it is calculable if it is not an ardor. sent5: the promycelium is not ergotropic. sent6: there is something such that it is hatless. sent7: if something is not non-canonist then the fact that the embellishment is not a plunk but it is an ardor is not right. sent8: if the fact that the special is sartorial and is not omissive is not right then the greenbottle is a canonist. sent9: if the plutocrat is nonpsychoactive then the promycelium is nonpsychoactive. sent10: if the plutocrat is not calculable the wife is a pocketknife and/or it is an anesthetic. sent11: that that something is tamed thing that is not ergotropic is true does not hold if it is nonpsychoactive. sent12: the promycelium is calculable thing that is not nonpsychoactive if there exists something such that it does tame. sent13: either the plutocrat is nonpsychoactive or it is botulinal or both if there are botulinal things. sent14: the wife is a kind of a pocketknife and/or it is a kind of an anesthetic. sent15: the fact that the plutocrat is not calculable is right. sent16: the wife is a kind of a pocketknife and/or it is not an anesthetic if the plutocrat is not calculable. sent17: if there exists something such that it is nonpsychoactive the promycelium is tamed but it is not ergotropic. sent18: if something is a pocketknife and/or it is not a kind of an anesthetic it is nonpsychoactive. sent19: if the wife is not a kind of an anesthetic then it is nonpsychoactive. sent20: the wife does tame if it is calculable and/or not a pocketknife. sent21: that something is nonpsychoactive is right if it is not an anesthetic. sent22: the scrumpy is not an ardor if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a plunk and it is an ardor is not true.
sent18 -> int1: the wife is nonpsychoactive if it is a pocketknife and/or not an anesthetic.; sent16 & sent15 -> int2: the wife is either a pocketknife or not an anesthetic or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the wife is nonpsychoactive.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is nonpsychoactive.; int4 & sent17 -> hypothesis;
that the promycelium does tame but it is not ergotropic is false.
sent11 -> int5: that the promycelium is tamed but it is not ergotropic is false if it is nonpsychoactive.; sent4 -> int6: the scrumpy is a kind of botulinal thing that is calculable if it is not an ardor.; sent8 & sent2 -> int7: the greenbottle is canonist.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is a canonist.; int8 & sent7 -> int9: that the embellishment is not a plunk and is a kind of an ardor is incorrect.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that that it is not a plunk but an ardor is not right.; int10 & sent22 -> int11: the scrumpy is not an ardor.; int6 & int11 -> int12: the scrumpy is botulinal and calculable.; int12 -> int13: the scrumpy is botulinal.; int13 -> int14: there is something such that it is botulinal.; int14 & sent13 -> int15: either the plutocrat is nonpsychoactive or it is botulinal or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the promycelium is a kind of tamed thing that is not ergotropic is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the bun is caecilian if it is not a kind of a pocketknife. sent2: the fact that the special is sartorial but it is not omissive is not right. sent3: the wife is a kind of a pocketknife but it is not nonpsychoactive if there is something such that it is ergotropic. sent4: something is botulinal and it is calculable if it is not an ardor. sent5: the promycelium is not ergotropic. sent6: there is something such that it is hatless. sent7: if something is not non-canonist then the fact that the embellishment is not a plunk but it is an ardor is not right. sent8: if the fact that the special is sartorial and is not omissive is not right then the greenbottle is a canonist. sent9: if the plutocrat is nonpsychoactive then the promycelium is nonpsychoactive. sent10: if the plutocrat is not calculable the wife is a pocketknife and/or it is an anesthetic. sent11: that that something is tamed thing that is not ergotropic is true does not hold if it is nonpsychoactive. sent12: the promycelium is calculable thing that is not nonpsychoactive if there exists something such that it does tame. sent13: either the plutocrat is nonpsychoactive or it is botulinal or both if there are botulinal things. sent14: the wife is a kind of a pocketknife and/or it is a kind of an anesthetic. sent15: the fact that the plutocrat is not calculable is right. sent16: the wife is a kind of a pocketknife and/or it is not an anesthetic if the plutocrat is not calculable. sent17: if there exists something such that it is nonpsychoactive the promycelium is tamed but it is not ergotropic. sent18: if something is a pocketknife and/or it is not a kind of an anesthetic it is nonpsychoactive. sent19: if the wife is not a kind of an anesthetic then it is nonpsychoactive. sent20: the wife does tame if it is calculable and/or not a pocketknife. sent21: that something is nonpsychoactive is right if it is not an anesthetic. sent22: the scrumpy is not an ardor if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a plunk and it is an ardor is not true. ; $proof$ = 
sent18 -> int1: the wife is nonpsychoactive if it is a pocketknife and/or not an anesthetic.; sent16 & sent15 -> int2: the wife is either a pocketknife or not an anesthetic or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the wife is nonpsychoactive.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is nonpsychoactive.; int4 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__