the swathe is not supportive and it is not nonlexical.
sent1: the tractor decorates Elinvar. sent2: the swathe is not supportive and is not non-Incan if there is something such that it does decorate antiaircraft. sent3: that the flytrap is a Amphiprion and it decorates antiaircraft does not hold. sent4: the antiaircraft is Incan if the fact that the smith is a kind of a rover but it is not a kind of a Wagnerian is not correct. sent5: the flytrap is not a Amphiprion but it does decorate antiaircraft if the fact that the antiaircraft does not vex flytrap is not wrong. sent6: if the flytrap is not a kind of a Casmerodius then it is tropical and is not processional. sent7: the smith does not decorate Elinvar if the tractor decorate Elinvar and/or does direct. sent8: if something is not a Amphiprion it is not nonlexical and it vexes flytrap. sent9: the fact that the flytrap is a kind of a Casmerodius is incorrect. sent10: if something is Incan and is supportive then it does not vex flytrap. sent11: the tractor interprets. sent12: the fact that the swathe is not supportive and it is not nonlexical does not hold if the antiaircraft is not supportive. sent13: the swathe does interpret. sent14: the fact that the swathe is a kind of a rover if the smith is not non-nonlexical is right. sent15: if the flytrap is tropical then the fact that the fact that the antiaircraft does not interpret but it is a trabecula is not incorrect does not hold. sent16: the smith decorates smith and it decorates antiaircraft if the fact that it does not decorate Elinvar hold. sent17: that the flytrap is not a Amphiprion but it does decorate antiaircraft is false if the tractor interprets. sent18: that the smith is a kind of a rover that is not Wagnerian is not correct.
sent4 & sent18 -> int1: the antiaircraft is Incan.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the antiaircraft is supportive.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the antiaircraft is Incan and is supportive.; sent10 -> int3: the antiaircraft does not vex flytrap if it is Incan and supportive.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the antiaircraft does not vex flytrap.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the flytrap is not a kind of a Amphiprion but it does decorate antiaircraft.; sent17 & sent11 -> int6: that the flytrap is not a Amphiprion but it decorates antiaircraft does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the antiaircraft is not supportive.; int8 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the swathe is not supportive and is not nonlexical.
sent1 -> int9: the tractor decorates Elinvar or it is not indirect or both.; sent7 & int9 -> int10: the smith does not decorate Elinvar.; sent16 & int10 -> int11: the smith decorates smith and it does decorate antiaircraft.; int11 -> int12: the fact that the smith does decorate antiaircraft is not wrong.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it does decorate antiaircraft.; int13 & sent2 -> int14: the swathe is a kind of unsupportive thing that is Incan.; int14 -> int15: the swathe is not supportive.; sent8 -> int16: the swathe is not nonlexical but it does vex flytrap if it is not a Amphiprion.; sent6 & sent9 -> int17: the flytrap is tropical but it is non-processional.; int17 -> int18: the flytrap is tropical.; sent15 & int18 -> int19: the fact that the antiaircraft does not interpret but it is a trabecula is not correct.; int19 -> int20: there exists something such that that it does not interpret and is a trabecula is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the swathe is not supportive and it is not nonlexical. ; $context$ = sent1: the tractor decorates Elinvar. sent2: the swathe is not supportive and is not non-Incan if there is something such that it does decorate antiaircraft. sent3: that the flytrap is a Amphiprion and it decorates antiaircraft does not hold. sent4: the antiaircraft is Incan if the fact that the smith is a kind of a rover but it is not a kind of a Wagnerian is not correct. sent5: the flytrap is not a Amphiprion but it does decorate antiaircraft if the fact that the antiaircraft does not vex flytrap is not wrong. sent6: if the flytrap is not a kind of a Casmerodius then it is tropical and is not processional. sent7: the smith does not decorate Elinvar if the tractor decorate Elinvar and/or does direct. sent8: if something is not a Amphiprion it is not nonlexical and it vexes flytrap. sent9: the fact that the flytrap is a kind of a Casmerodius is incorrect. sent10: if something is Incan and is supportive then it does not vex flytrap. sent11: the tractor interprets. sent12: the fact that the swathe is not supportive and it is not nonlexical does not hold if the antiaircraft is not supportive. sent13: the swathe does interpret. sent14: the fact that the swathe is a kind of a rover if the smith is not non-nonlexical is right. sent15: if the flytrap is tropical then the fact that the fact that the antiaircraft does not interpret but it is a trabecula is not incorrect does not hold. sent16: the smith decorates smith and it decorates antiaircraft if the fact that it does not decorate Elinvar hold. sent17: that the flytrap is not a Amphiprion but it does decorate antiaircraft is false if the tractor interprets. sent18: that the smith is a kind of a rover that is not Wagnerian is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent18 -> int1: the antiaircraft is Incan.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the antiaircraft is supportive.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the antiaircraft is Incan and is supportive.; sent10 -> int3: the antiaircraft does not vex flytrap if it is Incan and supportive.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the antiaircraft does not vex flytrap.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the flytrap is not a kind of a Amphiprion but it does decorate antiaircraft.; sent17 & sent11 -> int6: that the flytrap is not a Amphiprion but it decorates antiaircraft does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the antiaircraft is not supportive.; int8 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__