that the pyroscope is not macrocephalic and it does not varnish catechumen does not hold.
sent1: the fact that the pyroscope is a kind of non-macrocephalic thing that does not ignore Ustilago does not hold. sent2: the pyroscope is not anastigmatic. sent3: that the stainer does not wreathe but it is an immune is wrong. sent4: the lodge does not varnish catechumen and does not attenuate. sent5: the trimmer is an immune. sent6: the pyroscope is an immune if that it is not macrocephalic and it does not varnish catechumen is wrong. sent7: the lodge is not an immune. sent8: the fact that the pyroscope is an immune is not incorrect if it is a kind of a flannelbush. sent9: the fact that the pyroscope is not an immune hold. sent10: the fact that the pyroscope is not macrocephalic and it is not a kind of a ruddle does not hold. sent11: if that that the pyroscope is not a killdeer and is not macrocephalic hold is not true it is a kind of a paved. sent12: the pyroscope does perorate if the fact that it varnishes catechumen is not wrong. sent13: the pyroscope is not obstetrics. sent14: if that the pyroscope is not a kind of an immune and it is not a neckwear is not correct it does flick ukase. sent15: the pyroscope is not a haunt. sent16: the serratus is pectineal if the fact that it is not a kind of a Phalangeridae and it is non-penicillin-resistant is false. sent17: the pyroscope is sentential. sent18: the fact that the silencer does not varnish catechumen and is undiscriminating is not correct. sent19: if that something is not faucal but it is a bent does not hold the fact that it is not bibliothecal is not wrong. sent20: the subtopia does not varnish catechumen if there exists something such that it is not pectineal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the pyroscope is non-macrocephalic thing that does not varnish catechumen does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the pyroscope is immune.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;
the subtopia does not varnish catechumen.
sent19 -> int3: if the fact that the catechumen is not faucal but it is a bent is false it is not bibliothecal.;
$hypothesis$ = that the pyroscope is not macrocephalic and it does not varnish catechumen does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the pyroscope is a kind of non-macrocephalic thing that does not ignore Ustilago does not hold. sent2: the pyroscope is not anastigmatic. sent3: that the stainer does not wreathe but it is an immune is wrong. sent4: the lodge does not varnish catechumen and does not attenuate. sent5: the trimmer is an immune. sent6: the pyroscope is an immune if that it is not macrocephalic and it does not varnish catechumen is wrong. sent7: the lodge is not an immune. sent8: the fact that the pyroscope is an immune is not incorrect if it is a kind of a flannelbush. sent9: the fact that the pyroscope is not an immune hold. sent10: the fact that the pyroscope is not macrocephalic and it is not a kind of a ruddle does not hold. sent11: if that that the pyroscope is not a killdeer and is not macrocephalic hold is not true it is a kind of a paved. sent12: the pyroscope does perorate if the fact that it varnishes catechumen is not wrong. sent13: the pyroscope is not obstetrics. sent14: if that the pyroscope is not a kind of an immune and it is not a neckwear is not correct it does flick ukase. sent15: the pyroscope is not a haunt. sent16: the serratus is pectineal if the fact that it is not a kind of a Phalangeridae and it is non-penicillin-resistant is false. sent17: the pyroscope is sentential. sent18: the fact that the silencer does not varnish catechumen and is undiscriminating is not correct. sent19: if that something is not faucal but it is a bent does not hold the fact that it is not bibliothecal is not wrong. sent20: the subtopia does not varnish catechumen if there exists something such that it is not pectineal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the pyroscope is non-macrocephalic thing that does not varnish catechumen does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the pyroscope is immune.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__