that the argyll is both wireless and a scilla is incorrect.
sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a modal the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman. sent2: the Carver is a protuberance. sent3: the fact that the belemnite sidles Zukerman and is not diametral does not hold. sent4: the vicinity is not a scilla. sent5: the vicinity is advisable. sent6: something is non-wireless. sent7: the fact that the argyll is advisable and a scilla does not hold. sent8: the vicinity is not inaesthetic but it is majuscule. sent9: the belemnite is a scilla. sent10: the vicinity does not hatch dysfunction but it is a Cockney. sent11: if the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman then that the argyll is advisable and is a kind of a scilla is not correct. sent12: the Carver is a protuberance if the vicinity is majuscule. sent13: the vicinity is not inaesthetic. sent14: if that something is a kind of advisable thing that is not a scilla is not correct it is a scilla. sent15: the fact that the argyll is advisable thing that is not a scilla is not right if the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman. sent16: there exists something such that it is modal. sent17: if that the Carver does not sidle Zukerman hold that the belemnite is a kind of a protuberance but it is not diametral is incorrect. sent18: if the vicinity is majuscule then the Carver is a kind of non-diametral a protuberance. sent19: if the Carver is a kind of inaesthetic thing that is not majuscule then the vicinity is inaesthetic. sent20: if the fact that the argyll is a kind of a wireless but it is not inaesthetic is not true then that it is not inaesthetic is right. sent21: the fact that the vicinity sidles aerolite and is not inaesthetic is false. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it is not modal is correct. sent23: if the Carver is a kind of non-diametral thing that is a kind of a protuberance the argyll is a wireless. sent24: the fact that the Carver is inaesthetic is not false.
sent8 -> int1: the vicinity is majuscule.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the Carver is not diametral but it is a protuberance.; int2 & sent23 -> int3: the argyll is a wireless.; sent14 -> int4: the argyll is a scilla if that it is advisable and is not a kind of a scilla is not correct.; sent22 & sent1 -> int5: the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman.; sent15 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the argyll is advisable and not a scilla does not hold.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the argyll is a kind of a scilla.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis;
that the argyll is wireless and it is a scilla is incorrect.
$hypothesis$ = that the argyll is both wireless and a scilla is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is not a modal the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman. sent2: the Carver is a protuberance. sent3: the fact that the belemnite sidles Zukerman and is not diametral does not hold. sent4: the vicinity is not a scilla. sent5: the vicinity is advisable. sent6: something is non-wireless. sent7: the fact that the argyll is advisable and a scilla does not hold. sent8: the vicinity is not inaesthetic but it is majuscule. sent9: the belemnite is a scilla. sent10: the vicinity does not hatch dysfunction but it is a Cockney. sent11: if the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman then that the argyll is advisable and is a kind of a scilla is not correct. sent12: the Carver is a protuberance if the vicinity is majuscule. sent13: the vicinity is not inaesthetic. sent14: if that something is a kind of advisable thing that is not a scilla is not correct it is a scilla. sent15: the fact that the argyll is advisable thing that is not a scilla is not right if the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman. sent16: there exists something such that it is modal. sent17: if that the Carver does not sidle Zukerman hold that the belemnite is a kind of a protuberance but it is not diametral is incorrect. sent18: if the vicinity is majuscule then the Carver is a kind of non-diametral a protuberance. sent19: if the Carver is a kind of inaesthetic thing that is not majuscule then the vicinity is inaesthetic. sent20: if the fact that the argyll is a kind of a wireless but it is not inaesthetic is not true then that it is not inaesthetic is right. sent21: the fact that the vicinity sidles aerolite and is not inaesthetic is false. sent22: there exists something such that the fact that it is not modal is correct. sent23: if the Carver is a kind of non-diametral thing that is a kind of a protuberance the argyll is a wireless. sent24: the fact that the Carver is inaesthetic is not false. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 -> int1: the vicinity is majuscule.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the Carver is not diametral but it is a protuberance.; int2 & sent23 -> int3: the argyll is a wireless.; sent14 -> int4: the argyll is a scilla if that it is advisable and is not a kind of a scilla is not correct.; sent22 & sent1 -> int5: the belemnite does not sidle Zukerman.; sent15 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the argyll is advisable and not a scilla does not hold.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the argyll is a kind of a scilla.; int3 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__