the fact that the Ephesians does talk abeyance and is a kind of a prevision is wrong.
sent1: if something does not lock then it is a kind of a labial and it blames Wesleyan. sent2: the Ephesians is a prevision. sent3: if the tie is a kind of a Transcaucasia the fact that it does not fool yew is correct. sent4: the fact that the Ephesians does talk abeyance and is a prevision if there exists something such that it does not blame Wesleyan hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not fool Globicephala. sent6: that the arousal does fool Globicephala or it is a platform or both is false. sent7: the arousal does not fool Globicephala. sent8: there exists something such that it fools Globicephala or it is a kind of a platform or both. sent9: the yew is not a prevision if that something is labial and it does blame Wesleyan is true. sent10: the yew is a labial if it does blame Wesleyan. sent11: if the wigwam fools Globicephala then it does talk cleanness. sent12: if the tie talks cleanness it fools yew. sent13: the tie blames Wesleyan if it does fool yew. sent14: the tie talks cleanness if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it fools Globicephala or is a kind of a platform or both is not false is not correct. sent15: if the wigwam does talk cleanness then the arousal does not fool yew. sent16: the tie is not a lock and not a Transcaucasia if the arousal does not fool yew. sent17: something does blame Wesleyan. sent18: if either something is a kind of a Transcaucasia or it is a kind of a lock or both then it does not fool yew. sent19: the fact that the tie does lock if the yew is a kind of a labial is correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the yew does blame Wesleyan.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the yew is a kind of a labial.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the tie does lock.; int2 -> int3: the tie is a Transcaucasia and/or is a lock.; sent18 -> int4: the tie does not fool yew if it is a Transcaucasia or it does lock or both.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the tie does not fool yew.; sent6 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it does fool Globicephala and/or it is a platform is wrong.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the tie does talk cleanness.; sent12 & int7 -> int8: the tie fools yew.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the yew does not blame Wesleyan.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that that it does not blame Wesleyan hold.; int11 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the Ephesians does talk abeyance and it is a prevision is false.
sent1 -> int12: the tie is labial thing that blames Wesleyan if it does not lock.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Ephesians does talk abeyance and is a kind of a prevision is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not lock then it is a kind of a labial and it blames Wesleyan. sent2: the Ephesians is a prevision. sent3: if the tie is a kind of a Transcaucasia the fact that it does not fool yew is correct. sent4: the fact that the Ephesians does talk abeyance and is a prevision if there exists something such that it does not blame Wesleyan hold. sent5: there is something such that it does not fool Globicephala. sent6: that the arousal does fool Globicephala or it is a platform or both is false. sent7: the arousal does not fool Globicephala. sent8: there exists something such that it fools Globicephala or it is a kind of a platform or both. sent9: the yew is not a prevision if that something is labial and it does blame Wesleyan is true. sent10: the yew is a labial if it does blame Wesleyan. sent11: if the wigwam fools Globicephala then it does talk cleanness. sent12: if the tie talks cleanness it fools yew. sent13: the tie blames Wesleyan if it does fool yew. sent14: the tie talks cleanness if there is something such that the fact that the fact that it fools Globicephala or is a kind of a platform or both is not false is not correct. sent15: if the wigwam does talk cleanness then the arousal does not fool yew. sent16: the tie is not a lock and not a Transcaucasia if the arousal does not fool yew. sent17: something does blame Wesleyan. sent18: if either something is a kind of a Transcaucasia or it is a kind of a lock or both then it does not fool yew. sent19: the fact that the tie does lock if the yew is a kind of a labial is correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the yew does blame Wesleyan.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the yew is a kind of a labial.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: the tie does lock.; int2 -> int3: the tie is a Transcaucasia and/or is a lock.; sent18 -> int4: the tie does not fool yew if it is a Transcaucasia or it does lock or both.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the tie does not fool yew.; sent6 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it does fool Globicephala and/or it is a platform is wrong.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the tie does talk cleanness.; sent12 & int7 -> int8: the tie fools yew.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the yew does not blame Wesleyan.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that that it does not blame Wesleyan hold.; int11 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__