the bareboat does demise nitrochloromethane.
sent1: if something is not passionless and is not vegetative then it is not moonlit. sent2: if the blackwash demises nitrochloromethane and is not vegetative the bareboat demises nitrochloromethane. sent3: something is not a kind of a sentimentality if the fact that it is vegetative is not incorrect. sent4: if the blackwash is both passionless and non-vegetative then it is not moonlit. sent5: if the fact that the phototropism is a knowingness and it is a Sabine is not true it is not a Sabine. sent6: a passionless thing that is not vegetative is not moonlit. sent7: the bareboat does not demise nitrochloromethane and is a kind of a absolver if the blackwash is not moonlit. sent8: the blackwash is passionate. sent9: the blackwash demises nitrochloromethane if the noctiluca is not an athleticism and demises nitrochloromethane. sent10: if the raincoat is not a kind of a Smalley and it is not a knowingness it is not brotherly. sent11: that something is a absolver that is not a kind of a Sabine is false if it is not brotherly. sent12: the bareboat is a kind of a absolver. sent13: if the phototropism is not vegetative the blackwash is both not passionless and not vegetative. sent14: that the phototropism is both a knowingness and Sabine is not right. sent15: the fact that the vesicant is both not moonlit and a sentimentality is wrong if the raincoat is not passionless. sent16: the fact that the noctiluca is not an athleticism is not false. sent17: something is a kind of a sentimentality if the fact that it is not a kind of a Sabine is true. sent18: if that something is a absolver and is not a Sabine is not correct then it is not passionless.
sent3 -> int1: the phototropism is not a sentimentality if that it is vegetative hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the phototropism is vegetative.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the phototropism is not a sentimentality.; sent17 -> int3: if that the phototropism is not a Sabine is correct it is a sentimentality.; sent5 & sent14 -> int4: the phototropism is not a Sabine.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the phototropism is a sentimentality.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the phototropism is not vegetative.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the blackwash is not passionless and it is not vegetative.; sent1 -> int9: the blackwash is not moonlit if it is not passionless and is not vegetative.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the blackwash is not moonlit.; int10 & sent7 -> int11: the bareboat does not demise nitrochloromethane but it is a absolver.; int11 -> hypothesis;
the bareboat demises nitrochloromethane.
sent18 -> int12: if the fact that the raincoat is a absolver and is not a Sabine is false then it is passionate.; sent11 -> int13: that the raincoat is a absolver but not a Sabine is false if it is not brotherly.;
$hypothesis$ = the bareboat does demise nitrochloromethane. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not passionless and is not vegetative then it is not moonlit. sent2: if the blackwash demises nitrochloromethane and is not vegetative the bareboat demises nitrochloromethane. sent3: something is not a kind of a sentimentality if the fact that it is vegetative is not incorrect. sent4: if the blackwash is both passionless and non-vegetative then it is not moonlit. sent5: if the fact that the phototropism is a knowingness and it is a Sabine is not true it is not a Sabine. sent6: a passionless thing that is not vegetative is not moonlit. sent7: the bareboat does not demise nitrochloromethane and is a kind of a absolver if the blackwash is not moonlit. sent8: the blackwash is passionate. sent9: the blackwash demises nitrochloromethane if the noctiluca is not an athleticism and demises nitrochloromethane. sent10: if the raincoat is not a kind of a Smalley and it is not a knowingness it is not brotherly. sent11: that something is a absolver that is not a kind of a Sabine is false if it is not brotherly. sent12: the bareboat is a kind of a absolver. sent13: if the phototropism is not vegetative the blackwash is both not passionless and not vegetative. sent14: that the phototropism is both a knowingness and Sabine is not right. sent15: the fact that the vesicant is both not moonlit and a sentimentality is wrong if the raincoat is not passionless. sent16: the fact that the noctiluca is not an athleticism is not false. sent17: something is a kind of a sentimentality if the fact that it is not a kind of a Sabine is true. sent18: if that something is a absolver and is not a Sabine is not correct then it is not passionless. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: the phototropism is not a sentimentality if that it is vegetative hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the phototropism is vegetative.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the phototropism is not a sentimentality.; sent17 -> int3: if that the phototropism is not a Sabine is correct it is a sentimentality.; sent5 & sent14 -> int4: the phototropism is not a Sabine.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the phototropism is a sentimentality.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the phototropism is not vegetative.; int7 & sent13 -> int8: the blackwash is not passionless and it is not vegetative.; sent1 -> int9: the blackwash is not moonlit if it is not passionless and is not vegetative.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the blackwash is not moonlit.; int10 & sent7 -> int11: the bareboat does not demise nitrochloromethane but it is a absolver.; int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__