the fact that the awning is a kind of non-quadratics thing that does not company wave is not correct.
sent1: if something is not electromotive then it does not company wave and channels. sent2: the laetrile does not company wave if it does company Geum and/or it is an eater. sent3: if something is non-electromotive then that it is a kind of a channels hold. sent4: the fact that the laetrile is not an eater and it does not company wave is not wrong. sent5: if the laetrile is non-quadratics thing that does company Geum then the awning is an eater. sent6: the awning is a kind of a hemline if the laetrile is not motional and it is not an eater. sent7: the awning is not a channels if it is an eater or is electromotive or both. sent8: the laetrile is not electromotive. sent9: the awning does not stage piddock and it is handled. sent10: the megalopolis is not a tour and companies Khabarovsk if the fact that it does not clear neoconservative is not false. sent11: if the laetrile is electromotive and/or it is motional then it does not stage piddock. sent12: the romper is not cyanobacterial and is not unborn. sent13: the poultryman does not company carol and it is not motional. sent14: if the fact that something is a hemline and/or it does stage piddock is not incorrect that it is not a quadratics is correct. sent15: the environment is electromotive. sent16: something is not Hellenic if the fact that it is an inexperience hold. sent17: if something does stage piddock then that it is non-quadratics thing that does not company wave is not right. sent18: if the fact that the laetrile is both not quadratics and not electromotive hold then the fact that the awning is an eater is not false. sent19: if that the awning does not company Geum but it is electromotive does not hold the fact that it is electromotive hold. sent20: if the laetrile is not electromotive but it does heat then it does channel. sent21: something does not company Geum and channels if it is not motional. sent22: the laetrile is non-motional and it is not a kind of an eater. sent23: the fact that the awning does not company Geum but it is electromotive is wrong. sent24: the laetrile is not a Epicurus. sent25: the laetrile is not decent.
sent6 & sent22 -> int1: the awning is a kind of a hemline.; int1 -> int2: the awning is a kind of a hemline and/or it does stage piddock.; sent14 -> int3: the awning is not a kind of a quadratics if either it is a hemline or it stages piddock or both.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the awning is not a quadratics is right.; sent1 -> int5: the awning does not company wave and channels if it is non-electromotive.; sent19 & sent23 -> int6: the awning is not electromotive.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the awning does not company wave and is a kind of a channels.; int7 -> int8: the awning does not company wave.; int4 & int8 -> hypothesis;
that the awning is not quadratics and does not company wave is false.
sent17 -> int9: if the awning does stage piddock that it is not quadratics and it does not company wave does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the awning is a kind of non-quadratics thing that does not company wave is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not electromotive then it does not company wave and channels. sent2: the laetrile does not company wave if it does company Geum and/or it is an eater. sent3: if something is non-electromotive then that it is a kind of a channels hold. sent4: the fact that the laetrile is not an eater and it does not company wave is not wrong. sent5: if the laetrile is non-quadratics thing that does company Geum then the awning is an eater. sent6: the awning is a kind of a hemline if the laetrile is not motional and it is not an eater. sent7: the awning is not a channels if it is an eater or is electromotive or both. sent8: the laetrile is not electromotive. sent9: the awning does not stage piddock and it is handled. sent10: the megalopolis is not a tour and companies Khabarovsk if the fact that it does not clear neoconservative is not false. sent11: if the laetrile is electromotive and/or it is motional then it does not stage piddock. sent12: the romper is not cyanobacterial and is not unborn. sent13: the poultryman does not company carol and it is not motional. sent14: if the fact that something is a hemline and/or it does stage piddock is not incorrect that it is not a quadratics is correct. sent15: the environment is electromotive. sent16: something is not Hellenic if the fact that it is an inexperience hold. sent17: if something does stage piddock then that it is non-quadratics thing that does not company wave is not right. sent18: if the fact that the laetrile is both not quadratics and not electromotive hold then the fact that the awning is an eater is not false. sent19: if that the awning does not company Geum but it is electromotive does not hold the fact that it is electromotive hold. sent20: if the laetrile is not electromotive but it does heat then it does channel. sent21: something does not company Geum and channels if it is not motional. sent22: the laetrile is non-motional and it is not a kind of an eater. sent23: the fact that the awning does not company Geum but it is electromotive is wrong. sent24: the laetrile is not a Epicurus. sent25: the laetrile is not decent. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent22 -> int1: the awning is a kind of a hemline.; int1 -> int2: the awning is a kind of a hemline and/or it does stage piddock.; sent14 -> int3: the awning is not a kind of a quadratics if either it is a hemline or it stages piddock or both.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the awning is not a quadratics is right.; sent1 -> int5: the awning does not company wave and channels if it is non-electromotive.; sent19 & sent23 -> int6: the awning is not electromotive.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the awning does not company wave and is a kind of a channels.; int7 -> int8: the awning does not company wave.; int4 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__