the Macon does consternate weeder.
sent1: if the sourdough consternates Kimberley then the Macon does strengthen washed. sent2: the Macon is auscultatory thing that does not consubstantiate. sent3: the fact that something is auscultatory thing that does not consubstantiate is wrong if the fact that it is not behavioral is not incorrect. sent4: something that either does not strengthen washed or does not consternate Kimberley or both does consternate weeder. sent5: the fact that something does magnetize and consternates Kimberley hold if it does not strengthen washed. sent6: if something is non-behavioral then that it does consubstantiate and it does not consternate weeder is not correct. sent7: that the Macon is auscultatory and does consubstantiate does not hold. sent8: if the Macon does strengthen washed and does consternate weeder it is not behavioral. sent9: the sourdough does consternate Kimberley if there is something such that the fact that it magnetizes and is scotomatous is not true. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it does magnetize and is scotomatous is wrong.
sent10 & sent9 -> int1: the sourdough does consternate Kimberley.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the Macon strengthens washed.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Macon does consternate weeder.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the Macon strengthens washed and consternates weeder.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the Macon is not behavioral.; sent3 -> int5: the fact that the fact that the Macon is auscultatory but it does not consubstantiate does not hold hold if it is not behavioral.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the fact that the Macon is auscultatory and does not consubstantiate is right does not hold.; int6 & sent2 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
that the Macon does consternate weeder hold.
sent4 -> int8: if either the Macon does not strengthen washed or it does not consternate Kimberley or both then the fact that it consternates weeder is right.;
$hypothesis$ = the Macon does consternate weeder. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sourdough consternates Kimberley then the Macon does strengthen washed. sent2: the Macon is auscultatory thing that does not consubstantiate. sent3: the fact that something is auscultatory thing that does not consubstantiate is wrong if the fact that it is not behavioral is not incorrect. sent4: something that either does not strengthen washed or does not consternate Kimberley or both does consternate weeder. sent5: the fact that something does magnetize and consternates Kimberley hold if it does not strengthen washed. sent6: if something is non-behavioral then that it does consubstantiate and it does not consternate weeder is not correct. sent7: that the Macon is auscultatory and does consubstantiate does not hold. sent8: if the Macon does strengthen washed and does consternate weeder it is not behavioral. sent9: the sourdough does consternate Kimberley if there is something such that the fact that it magnetizes and is scotomatous is not true. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it does magnetize and is scotomatous is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent9 -> int1: the sourdough does consternate Kimberley.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the Macon strengthens washed.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Macon does consternate weeder.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the Macon strengthens washed and consternates weeder.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: the Macon is not behavioral.; sent3 -> int5: the fact that the fact that the Macon is auscultatory but it does not consubstantiate does not hold hold if it is not behavioral.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the fact that the Macon is auscultatory and does not consubstantiate is right does not hold.; int6 & sent2 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__