the meerkat is Hellenic.
sent1: the fact that the meerkat is paroxysmal but it does not snuffle imperfectibility is not false if the fact that the colostrum does not snuffle imperfectibility is not incorrect. sent2: that the meerkat is a kind of non-microeconomics thing that is paroxysmal is false if the cooker is not Hellenic. sent3: if the colostrum is not a transgene then it is not campylotropous. sent4: the meerkat is genetics if the colostrum does not reciprocate daguerreotype. sent5: the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype if it is paroxysmal and it does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent6: if the colostrum is not microeconomics the fact that it does not reciprocate daguerreotype and it is not paroxysmal does not hold. sent7: that the colostrum is not genetics is true. sent8: if the colostrum does not snuffle imperfectibility then the meerkat is genetics but it does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent9: the illustration reciprocates daguerreotype. sent10: the cooker is not Hellenic but it is a kind of a latter. sent11: the fact that the meerkat is a kind of non-genetics thing that is Hellenic is false. sent12: the cooker is not microeconomics. sent13: the cooker does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent14: the cooker is not Hellenic. sent15: the fact that the colostrum is non-Hellenic and snuffles imperfectibility is not true. sent16: the fact that the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype but it is Hellenic is incorrect if the cooker is not microeconomics. sent17: the piezometer does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent18: if the cooker is not genetics that the meerkat is non-Hellenic thing that is microeconomics is not true. sent19: if the cooker reciprocates daguerreotype and does not snuffle imperfectibility it is not microeconomics. sent20: the meerkat does reciprocate copepod. sent21: the meerkat is not autotypic. sent22: the colostrum is Hellenic. sent23: the salad is not genetics. sent24: the colostrum is not microeconomics if it does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent25: the cooker does not reciprocate daguerreotype if it snuffles imperfectibility and it is not microeconomics. sent26: if the colostrum is not genetics it does not snuffle imperfectibility.
sent26 & sent7 -> int1: the colostrum does not snuffle imperfectibility.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the meerkat is paroxysmal and does not snuffle imperfectibility.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the meerkat is Hellenic.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype and is not non-Hellenic.; sent16 & sent12 -> int5: that the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype but it is Hellenic is not right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the meerkat is Hellenic.
$hypothesis$ = the meerkat is Hellenic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the meerkat is paroxysmal but it does not snuffle imperfectibility is not false if the fact that the colostrum does not snuffle imperfectibility is not incorrect. sent2: that the meerkat is a kind of non-microeconomics thing that is paroxysmal is false if the cooker is not Hellenic. sent3: if the colostrum is not a transgene then it is not campylotropous. sent4: the meerkat is genetics if the colostrum does not reciprocate daguerreotype. sent5: the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype if it is paroxysmal and it does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent6: if the colostrum is not microeconomics the fact that it does not reciprocate daguerreotype and it is not paroxysmal does not hold. sent7: that the colostrum is not genetics is true. sent8: if the colostrum does not snuffle imperfectibility then the meerkat is genetics but it does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent9: the illustration reciprocates daguerreotype. sent10: the cooker is not Hellenic but it is a kind of a latter. sent11: the fact that the meerkat is a kind of non-genetics thing that is Hellenic is false. sent12: the cooker is not microeconomics. sent13: the cooker does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent14: the cooker is not Hellenic. sent15: the fact that the colostrum is non-Hellenic and snuffles imperfectibility is not true. sent16: the fact that the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype but it is Hellenic is incorrect if the cooker is not microeconomics. sent17: the piezometer does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent18: if the cooker is not genetics that the meerkat is non-Hellenic thing that is microeconomics is not true. sent19: if the cooker reciprocates daguerreotype and does not snuffle imperfectibility it is not microeconomics. sent20: the meerkat does reciprocate copepod. sent21: the meerkat is not autotypic. sent22: the colostrum is Hellenic. sent23: the salad is not genetics. sent24: the colostrum is not microeconomics if it does not snuffle imperfectibility. sent25: the cooker does not reciprocate daguerreotype if it snuffles imperfectibility and it is not microeconomics. sent26: if the colostrum is not genetics it does not snuffle imperfectibility. ; $proof$ = 
sent26 & sent7 -> int1: the colostrum does not snuffle imperfectibility.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the meerkat is paroxysmal and does not snuffle imperfectibility.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the meerkat is Hellenic.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype and is not non-Hellenic.; sent16 & sent12 -> int5: that the meerkat does not reciprocate daguerreotype but it is Hellenic is not right.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__