that if the Franciscan is overt the caper is a horsemanship and not Lamarckian is not true.
sent1: if that the caper is thinkable but it is not antipollution is false it is not fictional. sent2: if the caper is Lamarckian then it is non-overt. sent3: that the fact that the caper is both psycholinguistics and not a Gabonese does not hold hold. sent4: the caper does desexualize tophus and is not a kind of a Gabonese. sent5: if the Franciscan is overt then the fact that it desexualizes tophus and it is not thinkable is not right. sent6: the caper does desexualize tophus if the Franciscan is psycholinguistics. sent7: something is not a Lamarckian if the fact that it is both psycholinguistics and not Gabonese is not correct. sent8: that the Franciscan does urticate Rubus and it is a cascabel is not true. sent9: the caper is a kind of a horsemanship if that the Franciscan does desexualize tophus and is not thinkable is not true. sent10: if the caper is thinkable that it is a kind of a horsemanship and it is a Gabonese is not correct. sent11: that the caper is a kind of a Lamarckian that is overt is false. sent12: if that the Franciscan is a horsemanship but it is non-Gabonese is false the caper is thinkable. sent13: if the Franciscan is a Gabonese the caper is thinkable. sent14: the Franciscan does not desexualize tophus if that it is Lamarckian and it is not thinkable does not hold. sent15: if that something does desexualize tophus and is not overt is not correct it is non-Gabonese. sent16: the fact that the caper is a kind of a Gabonese that does not desexualize tophus is false. sent17: that the Franciscan is a horsemanship is correct if the caper desexualizes tophus. sent18: the fact that the Franciscan desexualizes tophus and is not a kind of a Lamarckian is not right. sent19: the Franciscan is overt but it is not Gabonese. sent20: the caper does mound fairness. sent21: the subcontractor is psycholinguistics. sent22: the caper is unthinkable. sent23: the fact that the caper is Gabonese and overt is false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Franciscan is overt.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the Franciscan desexualizes tophus but it is not thinkable is not correct.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the caper is a kind of a horsemanship.; sent7 -> int3: if that the caper is psycholinguistics but it is not a Gabonese is not correct then it is not a Lamarckian.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the caper is not Lamarckian.; int2 & int4 -> int5: the caper is a horsemanship but it is not a kind of a Lamarckian.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that if the Franciscan is overt the caper is a horsemanship and not Lamarckian is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the caper is thinkable but it is not antipollution is false it is not fictional. sent2: if the caper is Lamarckian then it is non-overt. sent3: that the fact that the caper is both psycholinguistics and not a Gabonese does not hold hold. sent4: the caper does desexualize tophus and is not a kind of a Gabonese. sent5: if the Franciscan is overt then the fact that it desexualizes tophus and it is not thinkable is not right. sent6: the caper does desexualize tophus if the Franciscan is psycholinguistics. sent7: something is not a Lamarckian if the fact that it is both psycholinguistics and not Gabonese is not correct. sent8: that the Franciscan does urticate Rubus and it is a cascabel is not true. sent9: the caper is a kind of a horsemanship if that the Franciscan does desexualize tophus and is not thinkable is not true. sent10: if the caper is thinkable that it is a kind of a horsemanship and it is a Gabonese is not correct. sent11: that the caper is a kind of a Lamarckian that is overt is false. sent12: if that the Franciscan is a horsemanship but it is non-Gabonese is false the caper is thinkable. sent13: if the Franciscan is a Gabonese the caper is thinkable. sent14: the Franciscan does not desexualize tophus if that it is Lamarckian and it is not thinkable does not hold. sent15: if that something does desexualize tophus and is not overt is not correct it is non-Gabonese. sent16: the fact that the caper is a kind of a Gabonese that does not desexualize tophus is false. sent17: that the Franciscan is a horsemanship is correct if the caper desexualizes tophus. sent18: the fact that the Franciscan desexualizes tophus and is not a kind of a Lamarckian is not right. sent19: the Franciscan is overt but it is not Gabonese. sent20: the caper does mound fairness. sent21: the subcontractor is psycholinguistics. sent22: the caper is unthinkable. sent23: the fact that the caper is Gabonese and overt is false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Franciscan is overt.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the Franciscan desexualizes tophus but it is not thinkable is not correct.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the caper is a kind of a horsemanship.; sent7 -> int3: if that the caper is psycholinguistics but it is not a Gabonese is not correct then it is not a Lamarckian.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the caper is not Lamarckian.; int2 & int4 -> int5: the caper is a horsemanship but it is not a kind of a Lamarckian.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__