that the nourishment uncoils gap and it is a locus does not hold.
sent1: the fact that the colophony is not burrlike but it is autoradiographic is false if it is not digestible. sent2: if the nourishment is not a locus then that it is not unconditional and is a kind of a Baltic is not true. sent3: there is something such that that it does upload Tzara and is passive is not right. sent4: that the antibiotic is not insurrectional but it is unconditional is false. sent5: the antibiotic does upload Tzara. sent6: the nourishment is a Baltic if that the antibiotic is not unconditional and it does not uncoil gap is false. sent7: the antibiotic is not a locus if there is something such that it is not a Baltic. sent8: if the antibiotic is not a Baltic then that it is not insurrectional and is unconditional does not hold. sent9: that the antibiotic is not a Baltic is right if something does not upload Tzara. sent10: the fact that the antibiotic is not a quack and is medical is incorrect if it is not insurrectional. sent11: the antibiotic is not a Baltic if there exists something such that the fact that it does upload Tzara and is a passive is not correct. sent12: that something does uncoil gap and is a kind of a locus does not hold if it is not a kind of a Baltic. sent13: the fact that the Cossack is a kind of non-Baltic thing that is not acrocentric is false. sent14: something uploads Tzara and is passive. sent15: the nourishment is a locus. sent16: if the fact that the antibiotic is both non-insurrectional and conditional is not true the nourishment uncoils gap. sent17: the nourishment uncoils gap if the antibiotic is unconditional. sent18: the fact that the antibiotic is both non-insurrectional and conditional does not hold if it is not Baltic. sent19: if the antibiotic does not uncoil gap that it is a locus but not unconditional is not right. sent20: that the nourishment is alluvial and is not a kind of a forward is not right. sent21: the fact that something is not a kind of a mil and it does not uncoil gap is not correct if it does not increase.
sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the antibiotic is not a Baltic.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the fact that the antibiotic is not insurrectional and not unconditional is incorrect.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the nourishment uncoils gap.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis;
that the cross-examiner is not a mil and does not uncoil gap does not hold if the fact that it is not a kind of an increase is not false.
sent21 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the nourishment uncoils gap and it is a locus does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the colophony is not burrlike but it is autoradiographic is false if it is not digestible. sent2: if the nourishment is not a locus then that it is not unconditional and is a kind of a Baltic is not true. sent3: there is something such that that it does upload Tzara and is passive is not right. sent4: that the antibiotic is not insurrectional but it is unconditional is false. sent5: the antibiotic does upload Tzara. sent6: the nourishment is a Baltic if that the antibiotic is not unconditional and it does not uncoil gap is false. sent7: the antibiotic is not a locus if there is something such that it is not a Baltic. sent8: if the antibiotic is not a Baltic then that it is not insurrectional and is unconditional does not hold. sent9: that the antibiotic is not a Baltic is right if something does not upload Tzara. sent10: the fact that the antibiotic is not a quack and is medical is incorrect if it is not insurrectional. sent11: the antibiotic is not a Baltic if there exists something such that the fact that it does upload Tzara and is a passive is not correct. sent12: that something does uncoil gap and is a kind of a locus does not hold if it is not a kind of a Baltic. sent13: the fact that the Cossack is a kind of non-Baltic thing that is not acrocentric is false. sent14: something uploads Tzara and is passive. sent15: the nourishment is a locus. sent16: if the fact that the antibiotic is both non-insurrectional and conditional is not true the nourishment uncoils gap. sent17: the nourishment uncoils gap if the antibiotic is unconditional. sent18: the fact that the antibiotic is both non-insurrectional and conditional does not hold if it is not Baltic. sent19: if the antibiotic does not uncoil gap that it is a locus but not unconditional is not right. sent20: that the nourishment is alluvial and is not a kind of a forward is not right. sent21: the fact that something is not a kind of a mil and it does not uncoil gap is not correct if it does not increase. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent11 -> int1: the antibiotic is not a Baltic.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the fact that the antibiotic is not insurrectional and not unconditional is incorrect.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the nourishment uncoils gap.; int3 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__