the fact that there is something such that if it is a policy it is not a kind of a smart is not right.
sent1: if that the carnivore is a smart is right it is not a policy. sent2: the fact that the organism is a policy hold. sent3: there is something such that if it is a pucker it is not recreational. sent4: something is a policy if it is intramural. sent5: the Merovingian is a onomancy if the nymph is not a onomancy. sent6: if the afterthought is not top-down then the horn is not non-intramural but it is not molal. sent7: the carnivore does descry delectability. sent8: if the fact that the carnivore does hallucinate hold the wellpoint is smart. sent9: the carnivore is not comparative. sent10: that the wellpoint is a smart is true if the carnivore is a kind of a smart. sent11: if that something is an observer and a onomancy is not false then the afterthought is not top-down. sent12: the nymph is not a onomancy if something that is a Kaiser does not lace substitution. sent13: if something is a policy then the carnivore either does hallucinate or is smart or both. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a policy it is smart. sent15: the fact that if the weigela does not descry bird the Merovingian is actinomorphic and it is an observer hold. sent16: if the propenal is iconic then it is a Kaiser and it does not lace substitution. sent17: if the carnivore is a smart then it is a kind of a policy. sent18: everything is a truthfulness and it is iconic. sent19: if the carnivore is a kind of a policy then it is a smart. sent20: the weigela does not descry bird.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the carnivore is a smart.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the carnivore is not a policy.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the carnivore is a policy.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the carnivore is not a smart.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: that the carnivore is not a smart hold if it is a kind of a policy.; int4 -> hypothesis;
the wellpoint is a kind of a smart.
sent4 -> int5: the horn is a kind of a policy if it is intramural.; sent15 & sent20 -> int6: the Merovingian is actinomorphic and it is an observer.; int6 -> int7: the Merovingian is a kind of an observer.; sent18 -> int8: the propenal is a kind of a truthfulness and it is not non-iconic.; int8 -> int9: the propenal is iconic.; sent16 & int9 -> int10: the propenal is a Kaiser but it does not lace substitution.; int10 -> int11: something is a Kaiser but it does not lace substitution.; int11 & sent12 -> int12: the nymph is not a onomancy.; sent5 & int12 -> int13: the Merovingian is a onomancy.; int7 & int13 -> int14: the Merovingian is both an observer and a onomancy.; int14 -> int15: something is an observer and is a onomancy.; int15 & sent11 -> int16: the afterthought is not top-down.; sent6 & int16 -> int17: the horn is intramural thing that is not molal.; int17 -> int18: the horn is intramural.; int5 & int18 -> int19: the horn is a policy.; int19 -> int20: something is a kind of a policy.; int20 & sent13 -> int21: either the carnivore hallucinates or it is a smart or both.; int21 & sent8 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is a policy it is not a kind of a smart is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the carnivore is a smart is right it is not a policy. sent2: the fact that the organism is a policy hold. sent3: there is something such that if it is a pucker it is not recreational. sent4: something is a policy if it is intramural. sent5: the Merovingian is a onomancy if the nymph is not a onomancy. sent6: if the afterthought is not top-down then the horn is not non-intramural but it is not molal. sent7: the carnivore does descry delectability. sent8: if the fact that the carnivore does hallucinate hold the wellpoint is smart. sent9: the carnivore is not comparative. sent10: that the wellpoint is a smart is true if the carnivore is a kind of a smart. sent11: if that something is an observer and a onomancy is not false then the afterthought is not top-down. sent12: the nymph is not a onomancy if something that is a Kaiser does not lace substitution. sent13: if something is a policy then the carnivore either does hallucinate or is smart or both. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a policy it is smart. sent15: the fact that if the weigela does not descry bird the Merovingian is actinomorphic and it is an observer hold. sent16: if the propenal is iconic then it is a Kaiser and it does not lace substitution. sent17: if the carnivore is a smart then it is a kind of a policy. sent18: everything is a truthfulness and it is iconic. sent19: if the carnivore is a kind of a policy then it is a smart. sent20: the weigela does not descry bird. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the carnivore is a smart.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the carnivore is not a policy.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the carnivore is a policy.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the carnivore is not a smart.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: that the carnivore is not a smart hold if it is a kind of a policy.; int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__