the furosemide is not neuroendocrine.
sent1: if the martensite is not a incognizance the fact that it is an addict and it is not ceric is not right. sent2: the martensite is not neuroendocrine. sent3: the martensite addicts but it is not ceric if the sorb is not anemophilous. sent4: the martensite is a fatigue if the terrorist does negotiate Siamese. sent5: the martensite is non-ceric if the sorb is not anemophilous. sent6: the furosemide is a kind of a incognizance. sent7: that if the sorb is anemophilous then the furosemide is neuroendocrine is not wrong. sent8: that the martensite is both an addict and ceric is not right if it is not a kind of a incognizance. sent9: the martensite is not ceric. sent10: that the martensite is a kind of an addict that is not non-ceric is wrong. sent11: the martensite is a kind of a bench but it does not regroup. sent12: the martensite is not a kind of a incognizance. sent13: if something is not non-anemophilous it is not ceric. sent14: if the martensite is a fatigue then that the sorb does regroup and is not a nightingale does not hold. sent15: something that is not a kind of a bench is a incognizance and is anemophilous. sent16: if something is anemophilous the fact that it is not neuroendocrine is not incorrect. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a lodestar that does not negotiate Siamese is not right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sorb is not anemophilous.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the martensite does addict and is not ceric.; sent1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the martensite addicts but it is not ceric is incorrect hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sorb is anemophilous.; int4 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the gulp is not ceric.
sent13 -> int5: if the gulp is anemophilous it is not ceric.; sent11 -> int6: something is a bench but it does not regroup.;
$hypothesis$ = the furosemide is not neuroendocrine. ; $context$ = sent1: if the martensite is not a incognizance the fact that it is an addict and it is not ceric is not right. sent2: the martensite is not neuroendocrine. sent3: the martensite addicts but it is not ceric if the sorb is not anemophilous. sent4: the martensite is a fatigue if the terrorist does negotiate Siamese. sent5: the martensite is non-ceric if the sorb is not anemophilous. sent6: the furosemide is a kind of a incognizance. sent7: that if the sorb is anemophilous then the furosemide is neuroendocrine is not wrong. sent8: that the martensite is both an addict and ceric is not right if it is not a kind of a incognizance. sent9: the martensite is not ceric. sent10: that the martensite is a kind of an addict that is not non-ceric is wrong. sent11: the martensite is a kind of a bench but it does not regroup. sent12: the martensite is not a kind of a incognizance. sent13: if something is not non-anemophilous it is not ceric. sent14: if the martensite is a fatigue then that the sorb does regroup and is not a nightingale does not hold. sent15: something that is not a kind of a bench is a incognizance and is anemophilous. sent16: if something is anemophilous the fact that it is not neuroendocrine is not incorrect. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a lodestar that does not negotiate Siamese is not right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sorb is not anemophilous.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the martensite does addict and is not ceric.; sent1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that the fact that the martensite addicts but it is not ceric is incorrect hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sorb is anemophilous.; int4 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__