the tapper is not chalky.
sent1: the fact that the tapper is a Scomberomorus but it does not stigmatize gasket is not correct if the canaliculus is virile. sent2: there are non-cytolytic things. sent3: if there is something such that that it is a drawbridge and/or is a survivalist is not correct the canaliculus does not stigmatize gasket. sent4: the fact that the canaliculus is virile is right if it is not a drawbridge. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not a Scomberomorus and/or it is not virile is not correct then the tapper romanticizes. sent6: the canaliculus does not depersonalize. sent7: the onomancer is virile if there exists something such that that it is not a survivalist or is not a kind of a Scomberomorus or both is not right. sent8: if something is not a secondment it is cerebrospinal. sent9: everything perplexes Nepal. sent10: if something does perplex Nepal then either it is chalky or it is not a kinship or both. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not virile the heartthrob is not a Scomberomorus and it does not stigmatize gasket. sent12: something is not a kind of a coachman. sent13: either something is not a Verbenaceae or it does not perplex Pomo or both. sent14: if there is something such that the fact that that it is not virile or does stigmatize gasket or both is correct does not hold then the fact that the canaliculus is chalky is correct. sent15: if something does romanticize it is chalky. sent16: if something is not a Scomberomorus and it does not stigmatize gasket then it does romanticize. sent17: the fact that the onomancer does not stigmatize Cotswold and/or does not excise Stone does not hold. sent18: the onomancer is not a drawbridge. sent19: the fact that that something is not a kind of a Scomberomorus and/or is not virile is not right if it does not stigmatize gasket is not wrong. sent20: if there is something such that it does romanticize and it is not a kinship the canaliculus is virile. sent21: there exists something such that it is not union. sent22: something is a gateway if it is not a kind of a dyer. sent23: that the onomancer either is a drawbridge or is a survivalist or both is not right.
sent23 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a drawbridge or it is a kind of a survivalist or both does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the canaliculus does not stigmatize gasket.; sent19 -> int3: the fact that the canaliculus is not a Scomberomorus or it is not virile or both is not correct if it does not stigmatize gasket.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the canaliculus is not a kind of a Scomberomorus or it is not virile or both is not true.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that that it is not a Scomberomorus and/or it is not virile is wrong.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the tapper romanticizes.; sent15 -> int7: the tapper is chalky if it does romanticize.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the heartthrob does romanticize.
sent10 -> int8: if the amitriptyline does perplex Nepal then it is chalky or it is not a kinship or both.; sent9 -> int9: the amitriptyline perplexes Nepal.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the amitriptyline is chalky and/or is not a kinship.; int10 -> int11: either everything is chalky or it is not a kinship or both.; int11 -> int12: either the tapper is chalky or it is not a kinship or both.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it is chalky or it is not a kinship or both.; sent16 -> int14: if the heartthrob is not a kind of a Scomberomorus and it does not stigmatize gasket then it does romanticize.;
$hypothesis$ = the tapper is not chalky. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the tapper is a Scomberomorus but it does not stigmatize gasket is not correct if the canaliculus is virile. sent2: there are non-cytolytic things. sent3: if there is something such that that it is a drawbridge and/or is a survivalist is not correct the canaliculus does not stigmatize gasket. sent4: the fact that the canaliculus is virile is right if it is not a drawbridge. sent5: if there is something such that that it is not a Scomberomorus and/or it is not virile is not correct then the tapper romanticizes. sent6: the canaliculus does not depersonalize. sent7: the onomancer is virile if there exists something such that that it is not a survivalist or is not a kind of a Scomberomorus or both is not right. sent8: if something is not a secondment it is cerebrospinal. sent9: everything perplexes Nepal. sent10: if something does perplex Nepal then either it is chalky or it is not a kinship or both. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not virile the heartthrob is not a Scomberomorus and it does not stigmatize gasket. sent12: something is not a kind of a coachman. sent13: either something is not a Verbenaceae or it does not perplex Pomo or both. sent14: if there is something such that the fact that that it is not virile or does stigmatize gasket or both is correct does not hold then the fact that the canaliculus is chalky is correct. sent15: if something does romanticize it is chalky. sent16: if something is not a Scomberomorus and it does not stigmatize gasket then it does romanticize. sent17: the fact that the onomancer does not stigmatize Cotswold and/or does not excise Stone does not hold. sent18: the onomancer is not a drawbridge. sent19: the fact that that something is not a kind of a Scomberomorus and/or is not virile is not right if it does not stigmatize gasket is not wrong. sent20: if there is something such that it does romanticize and it is not a kinship the canaliculus is virile. sent21: there exists something such that it is not union. sent22: something is a gateway if it is not a kind of a dyer. sent23: that the onomancer either is a drawbridge or is a survivalist or both is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent23 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a drawbridge or it is a kind of a survivalist or both does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the canaliculus does not stigmatize gasket.; sent19 -> int3: the fact that the canaliculus is not a Scomberomorus or it is not virile or both is not correct if it does not stigmatize gasket.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the canaliculus is not a kind of a Scomberomorus or it is not virile or both is not true.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that that it is not a Scomberomorus and/or it is not virile is wrong.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the tapper romanticizes.; sent15 -> int7: the tapper is chalky if it does romanticize.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__