the fact that the monomaniac does deafen plasterboard and it is nonspecific is false.
sent1: the monomaniac is nonspecific if there exists something such that it captures harmony. sent2: the spectrogram is a whole. sent3: that something does deafen plasterboard and it is nonspecific is not right if it is not a precipitin. sent4: the spectrogram is a preponderance. sent5: the monomaniac is nonspecific. sent6: if something is not a kind of a whole it is a kind of a commonality that is a precipitin. sent7: if the spectrogram is not syncretic the fact that it is not a preponderance and is a kind of a basalt does not hold. sent8: that that the spectrogram is a whole and is a basalt does not hold hold if the fact that the bastille is not a preponderance is not false. sent9: the advancer captures harmony if the bastille is hidrotic. sent10: if the spectrogram is syncretic it is accurate. sent11: the monomaniac is both icosahedral and hidrotic. sent12: there exists something such that it is syncretic. sent13: the spectrogram is a preponderance but it is not a basalt if it is a precipitin. sent14: if there is something such that it does capture harmony then the monomaniac does deafen plasterboard and is nonspecific. sent15: the monomaniac is a kind of a precipitin. sent16: if the spectrogram is accurate then the bastille is hidrotic. sent17: if the spectrogram is a kind of a whole then it is hidrotic. sent18: the spectrogram is a precipitin and whole. sent19: the advancer is a kind of a preponderance. sent20: the spectrogram is a preponderance if it is a precipitin. sent21: the monomaniac is a precipitin and is immanent. sent22: if the spectrogram is a kind of a preponderance but it is not a basalt it is syncretic.
sent18 -> int1: the spectrogram is a kind of a precipitin.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the spectrogram is both a preponderance and not a basalt.; int2 & sent22 -> int3: the spectrogram is syncretic.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the spectrogram is accurate.; int4 & sent16 -> int5: the bastille is not non-hidrotic.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the advancer does capture harmony.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it captures harmony.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the plasterboard is a commonality.
sent6 -> int8: the plasterboard is a kind of a commonality and it is a precipitin if it is not a whole.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the monomaniac does deafen plasterboard and it is nonspecific is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the monomaniac is nonspecific if there exists something such that it captures harmony. sent2: the spectrogram is a whole. sent3: that something does deafen plasterboard and it is nonspecific is not right if it is not a precipitin. sent4: the spectrogram is a preponderance. sent5: the monomaniac is nonspecific. sent6: if something is not a kind of a whole it is a kind of a commonality that is a precipitin. sent7: if the spectrogram is not syncretic the fact that it is not a preponderance and is a kind of a basalt does not hold. sent8: that that the spectrogram is a whole and is a basalt does not hold hold if the fact that the bastille is not a preponderance is not false. sent9: the advancer captures harmony if the bastille is hidrotic. sent10: if the spectrogram is syncretic it is accurate. sent11: the monomaniac is both icosahedral and hidrotic. sent12: there exists something such that it is syncretic. sent13: the spectrogram is a preponderance but it is not a basalt if it is a precipitin. sent14: if there is something such that it does capture harmony then the monomaniac does deafen plasterboard and is nonspecific. sent15: the monomaniac is a kind of a precipitin. sent16: if the spectrogram is accurate then the bastille is hidrotic. sent17: if the spectrogram is a kind of a whole then it is hidrotic. sent18: the spectrogram is a precipitin and whole. sent19: the advancer is a kind of a preponderance. sent20: the spectrogram is a preponderance if it is a precipitin. sent21: the monomaniac is a precipitin and is immanent. sent22: if the spectrogram is a kind of a preponderance but it is not a basalt it is syncretic. ; $proof$ = 
sent18 -> int1: the spectrogram is a kind of a precipitin.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the spectrogram is both a preponderance and not a basalt.; int2 & sent22 -> int3: the spectrogram is syncretic.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the spectrogram is accurate.; int4 & sent16 -> int5: the bastille is not non-hidrotic.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the advancer does capture harmony.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it captures harmony.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__