the cardroom does assume Scolopacidae.
sent1: if that something is not aware and/or it assumes appeaser is not right then it does not spend oxymoron. sent2: the nitrite is not Linnaean. sent3: the cardroom does not assume Scolopacidae if the nitrite is not aware or it does assume appeaser or both. sent4: the fact that the cardroom spends oxymoron is not incorrect if the hank is a boson. sent5: that the hank is a boson hold if the fact that the haloform is a kind of a boson but it is not Linnaean does not hold. sent6: the nitrite is aware. sent7: the nitrite is not a kind of a polyvinyl-formaldehyde if it is not Linnaean. sent8: the nitrite is aware and/or it assumes appeaser. sent9: if something is unaware it is a kind of a polyvinyl-formaldehyde. sent10: the nitrite is not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde and does not assume Scolopacidae. sent11: if that the nitrite is aware and/or it assumes appeaser is wrong it does not spend oxymoron. sent12: if something does not testify facility then it is both unaware and Cyprian. sent13: if something that is not a kind of a boson is not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde it does spend oxymoron. sent14: the nitrite is not a boson and it is not a kind of a polyvinyl-formaldehyde if it is not Linnaean. sent15: the fact that the fact that the haloform is a boson and non-Linnaean is not true if the hematinic is a polyvinyl-formaldehyde is not wrong. sent16: the cardroom does not assume Scolopacidae if the nitrite is not aware. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an ornithology and it does testify facility is false.
sent1 -> int1: the nitrite does not spend oxymoron if that either it is not aware or it does assume appeaser or both is wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the nitrite either is unaware or does assume appeaser or both is not correct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the nitrite does not spend oxymoron.; sent13 -> int3: if the nitrite is not a boson and not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde then it does spend oxymoron.; sent14 & sent2 -> int4: the nitrite is not a boson and not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the nitrite does spend oxymoron.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the nitrite is not aware and/or it does assume appeaser.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the cardroom assumes Scolopacidae.
sent9 -> int8: if the hematinic is unaware it is a polyvinyl-formaldehyde.; sent12 -> int9: the hematinic is unaware and Cyprian if it does not testify facility.;
$hypothesis$ = the cardroom does assume Scolopacidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not aware and/or it assumes appeaser is not right then it does not spend oxymoron. sent2: the nitrite is not Linnaean. sent3: the cardroom does not assume Scolopacidae if the nitrite is not aware or it does assume appeaser or both. sent4: the fact that the cardroom spends oxymoron is not incorrect if the hank is a boson. sent5: that the hank is a boson hold if the fact that the haloform is a kind of a boson but it is not Linnaean does not hold. sent6: the nitrite is aware. sent7: the nitrite is not a kind of a polyvinyl-formaldehyde if it is not Linnaean. sent8: the nitrite is aware and/or it assumes appeaser. sent9: if something is unaware it is a kind of a polyvinyl-formaldehyde. sent10: the nitrite is not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde and does not assume Scolopacidae. sent11: if that the nitrite is aware and/or it assumes appeaser is wrong it does not spend oxymoron. sent12: if something does not testify facility then it is both unaware and Cyprian. sent13: if something that is not a kind of a boson is not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde it does spend oxymoron. sent14: the nitrite is not a boson and it is not a kind of a polyvinyl-formaldehyde if it is not Linnaean. sent15: the fact that the fact that the haloform is a boson and non-Linnaean is not true if the hematinic is a polyvinyl-formaldehyde is not wrong. sent16: the cardroom does not assume Scolopacidae if the nitrite is not aware. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is not an ornithology and it does testify facility is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: the nitrite does not spend oxymoron if that either it is not aware or it does assume appeaser or both is wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the nitrite either is unaware or does assume appeaser or both is not correct.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the nitrite does not spend oxymoron.; sent13 -> int3: if the nitrite is not a boson and not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde then it does spend oxymoron.; sent14 & sent2 -> int4: the nitrite is not a boson and not a polyvinyl-formaldehyde.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the nitrite does spend oxymoron.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the nitrite is not aware and/or it does assume appeaser.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__