that if the wineberry is a cramped that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell is false is wrong.
sent1: if the rapporteur does upload rapporteur that the wineberry is not a cramped and is not a Cavell is wrong. sent2: if the rapporteur does upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell then the wineberry is not a cramped. sent3: if the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur but it is a Cavell the wineberry does not cramp. sent4: the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur if the wineberry is not a cramped and it is not a Cavell. sent5: if the wineberry is a cramped then the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a kind of a Cavell. sent6: the fact that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur but it is a Cavell is incorrect. sent7: if the wineberry cramps the fact that the fact that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur but it is a Cavell is right does not hold. sent8: the fact that the wineberry does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell does not hold if the rapporteur does cramp. sent9: that the wineberry does not upload rapporteur and it is not a kind of a cramped is not true. sent10: that the wineberry is not a kind of a Cavell and it is not a kind of a cramped is false. sent11: that the rapporteur is not a kind of a Cavell is right. sent12: the Jesuit is not a kind of a Cavell. sent13: the Martin is not a cramped and it is not nonfictional. sent14: if the rapporteur is not a cramped and not a Cavell the wineberry does not upload rapporteur. sent15: that the rapporteur uploads rapporteur and is not a Cavell is incorrect if the fact that the wineberry is a kind of a cramped is right. sent16: that the rapporteur is not a cramped and does not upload rapporteur is wrong. sent17: if the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell the wineberry is not a kind of a cramped. sent18: if the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell the wineberry is a kind of a cramped. sent19: that the rapporteur does not cramp and it does not upload rapporteur is wrong if that the wineberry is a Cavell hold. sent20: the rapporteur is not seedy and it is not a Cavell.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell.; sent17 & assump2 -> int1: the wineberry does not cramp.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wineberry is a cramped.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and it is not a Cavell is not correct.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that if the wineberry is a cramped that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell is false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rapporteur does upload rapporteur that the wineberry is not a cramped and is not a Cavell is wrong. sent2: if the rapporteur does upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell then the wineberry is not a cramped. sent3: if the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur but it is a Cavell the wineberry does not cramp. sent4: the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur if the wineberry is not a cramped and it is not a Cavell. sent5: if the wineberry is a cramped then the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a kind of a Cavell. sent6: the fact that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur but it is a Cavell is incorrect. sent7: if the wineberry cramps the fact that the fact that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur but it is a Cavell is right does not hold. sent8: the fact that the wineberry does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell does not hold if the rapporteur does cramp. sent9: that the wineberry does not upload rapporteur and it is not a kind of a cramped is not true. sent10: that the wineberry is not a kind of a Cavell and it is not a kind of a cramped is false. sent11: that the rapporteur is not a kind of a Cavell is right. sent12: the Jesuit is not a kind of a Cavell. sent13: the Martin is not a cramped and it is not nonfictional. sent14: if the rapporteur is not a cramped and not a Cavell the wineberry does not upload rapporteur. sent15: that the rapporteur uploads rapporteur and is not a Cavell is incorrect if the fact that the wineberry is a kind of a cramped is right. sent16: that the rapporteur is not a cramped and does not upload rapporteur is wrong. sent17: if the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell the wineberry is not a kind of a cramped. sent18: if the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell the wineberry is a kind of a cramped. sent19: that the rapporteur does not cramp and it does not upload rapporteur is wrong if that the wineberry is a Cavell hold. sent20: the rapporteur is not seedy and it is not a Cavell. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and is not a Cavell.; sent17 & assump2 -> int1: the wineberry does not cramp.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wineberry is a cramped.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the rapporteur does not upload rapporteur and it is not a Cavell is not correct.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__