the fact that the jodhpur is an imputation hold.
sent1: the slat is not a petroglyph if something is not a corrective. sent2: the fact that the slat is a misstatement and is a pound is not true. sent3: if the fact that the jodhpur is a petroglyph and is not a kind of an imputation is not true then it is a kind of an imputation. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is not monochromatic hold the gesneriad is not a corrective. sent5: the slat is not a petroglyph if it is specialistic. sent6: if something is specialistic it is not a corrective. sent7: that the slat is monochromatic if that the slat is an imputation but it is monochromatic is not right is not false. sent8: the fact that the gesneriad is not an imputation is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a corrective. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a blaze that the slat is not a petroglyph and/or is specialistic is wrong. sent10: the fact that the slat does not blind slat is true. sent11: if the fact that the fact that the slat is an imputation but it is not a petroglyph is true does not hold then it is a petroglyph. sent12: if there is something such that it is not specialistic then that the gesneriad is either not a corrective or a petroglyph or both does not hold. sent13: that the slat is not monochromatic and/or it is a petroglyph is wrong if there exists something such that it is not a corrective. sent14: there exists something such that it is not a petroglyph. sent15: if that the gesneriad does blaze but it is not specialistic is false then that it is specialistic is true. sent16: the gesneriad is not specialistic if that the jodhpur is not a corrective or is a kind of an imputation or both is false. sent17: the fact that the acaricide is not unrepeatable and/or it is transcultural does not hold. sent18: the jodhpur is an amphitheater. sent19: the executor is not a kind of a petroglyph. sent20: if the fact that the slat is not monochromatic or is a petroglyph or both is wrong that the jodhpur is not an imputation is correct. sent21: there is something such that it is not an imputation. sent22: if something is not a blaze then the fact that the slat is either non-monochromatic or specialistic or both is false. sent23: if there exists something such that it does not blaze the gesneriad is not specialistic. sent24: that the gesneriad is a kind of a blaze and is not specialistic is not true. sent25: there exists something such that it is monochromatic.
sent6 -> int1: the gesneriad is not a kind of a corrective if it is specialistic.; sent15 & sent24 -> int2: the gesneriad is specialistic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the gesneriad is not a corrective is not wrong.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is not a corrective.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the fact that the slat is not monochromatic or a petroglyph or both does not hold.; int5 & sent20 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the jodhpur is an imputation hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the slat is not a petroglyph if something is not a corrective. sent2: the fact that the slat is a misstatement and is a pound is not true. sent3: if the fact that the jodhpur is a petroglyph and is not a kind of an imputation is not true then it is a kind of an imputation. sent4: if there is something such that the fact that it is not monochromatic hold the gesneriad is not a corrective. sent5: the slat is not a petroglyph if it is specialistic. sent6: if something is specialistic it is not a corrective. sent7: that the slat is monochromatic if that the slat is an imputation but it is monochromatic is not right is not false. sent8: the fact that the gesneriad is not an imputation is not incorrect if there is something such that it is not a corrective. sent9: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a blaze that the slat is not a petroglyph and/or is specialistic is wrong. sent10: the fact that the slat does not blind slat is true. sent11: if the fact that the fact that the slat is an imputation but it is not a petroglyph is true does not hold then it is a petroglyph. sent12: if there is something such that it is not specialistic then that the gesneriad is either not a corrective or a petroglyph or both does not hold. sent13: that the slat is not monochromatic and/or it is a petroglyph is wrong if there exists something such that it is not a corrective. sent14: there exists something such that it is not a petroglyph. sent15: if that the gesneriad does blaze but it is not specialistic is false then that it is specialistic is true. sent16: the gesneriad is not specialistic if that the jodhpur is not a corrective or is a kind of an imputation or both is false. sent17: the fact that the acaricide is not unrepeatable and/or it is transcultural does not hold. sent18: the jodhpur is an amphitheater. sent19: the executor is not a kind of a petroglyph. sent20: if the fact that the slat is not monochromatic or is a petroglyph or both is wrong that the jodhpur is not an imputation is correct. sent21: there is something such that it is not an imputation. sent22: if something is not a blaze then the fact that the slat is either non-monochromatic or specialistic or both is false. sent23: if there exists something such that it does not blaze the gesneriad is not specialistic. sent24: that the gesneriad is a kind of a blaze and is not specialistic is not true. sent25: there exists something such that it is monochromatic. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the gesneriad is not a kind of a corrective if it is specialistic.; sent15 & sent24 -> int2: the gesneriad is specialistic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the gesneriad is not a corrective is not wrong.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it is not a corrective.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the fact that the slat is not monochromatic or a petroglyph or both does not hold.; int5 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__