that if the squamule is muciferous the fact that the squamule is bovine but not a hunger does not hold is not true.
sent1: the balmoral complects blamelessness if it is not a pop. sent2: if the squamule is a Mullah that it is bovine thing that hungers is not right. sent3: if something is not a bovine it is not a kind of a Mullah and it is not muciferous. sent4: if something is a pop then it is not a hunger and is not a kind of a bovine. sent5: if something is a Mullah that it is bovine and it is a hunger is wrong. sent6: the fact that the squamule is bovine a hunger is not correct. sent7: the professional is a kind of a pop. sent8: if something is not a hunger and is not a bovine then the TC is muciferous. sent9: the squamule is a bovine but it does not hunger if the fact that it is muciferous hold. sent10: the balmoral is not a pop. sent11: if the squamule is a Mullah it is a kind of a bovine and is not a hunger. sent12: that something is a bovine but it is not a hunger is not true if it is a Mullah. sent13: if the squamule complects blamelessness then it is a Mullah. sent14: if something does not complect blamelessness then it is not muciferous. sent15: the squamule is a bovine and is not a hunger. sent16: if something does complect blamelessness the fact that it is a Tory that is not a Mullah is wrong. sent17: something is a bovine and not a hunger if it is a Mullah. sent18: that the squamule is a Mullah but it does not glom spammer is false. sent19: that something is both a stonefly and not closing is not true if it is a matchlock. sent20: if the squamule is muciferous then that it is a bovine and it hungers is incorrect.
sent14 -> int1: if the fact that the squamule does not complect blamelessness is not incorrect it is not muciferous.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the squamule does not complect blamelessness.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the squamule is not muciferous.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the squamule is muciferous.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the squamule does complect blamelessness.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the squamule is a Mullah.; sent12 -> int6: if the squamule is a Mullah then the fact that it is a kind of bovine thing that is not a kind of a hunger is incorrect.; int5 & int6 -> int7: that the squamule is a kind of a bovine but it is not a kind of a hunger is not true.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the dinosaur is a Tory that is not a kind of a Mullah is wrong.
sent16 -> int8: that the dinosaur is a Tory but it is not a Mullah is wrong if it complects blamelessness.; sent4 -> int9: the professional is not a hunger and not bovine if it is a pop.; int9 & sent7 -> int10: the professional does not hunger and it is not a bovine.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is not a hunger and it is not a bovine.; int11 & sent8 -> int12: the TC is muciferous.; int12 -> int13: there are muciferous things.;
$hypothesis$ = that if the squamule is muciferous the fact that the squamule is bovine but not a hunger does not hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the balmoral complects blamelessness if it is not a pop. sent2: if the squamule is a Mullah that it is bovine thing that hungers is not right. sent3: if something is not a bovine it is not a kind of a Mullah and it is not muciferous. sent4: if something is a pop then it is not a hunger and is not a kind of a bovine. sent5: if something is a Mullah that it is bovine and it is a hunger is wrong. sent6: the fact that the squamule is bovine a hunger is not correct. sent7: the professional is a kind of a pop. sent8: if something is not a hunger and is not a bovine then the TC is muciferous. sent9: the squamule is a bovine but it does not hunger if the fact that it is muciferous hold. sent10: the balmoral is not a pop. sent11: if the squamule is a Mullah it is a kind of a bovine and is not a hunger. sent12: that something is a bovine but it is not a hunger is not true if it is a Mullah. sent13: if the squamule complects blamelessness then it is a Mullah. sent14: if something does not complect blamelessness then it is not muciferous. sent15: the squamule is a bovine and is not a hunger. sent16: if something does complect blamelessness the fact that it is a Tory that is not a Mullah is wrong. sent17: something is a bovine and not a hunger if it is a Mullah. sent18: that the squamule is a Mullah but it does not glom spammer is false. sent19: that something is both a stonefly and not closing is not true if it is a matchlock. sent20: if the squamule is muciferous then that it is a bovine and it hungers is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 -> int1: if the fact that the squamule does not complect blamelessness is not incorrect it is not muciferous.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the squamule does not complect blamelessness.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the squamule is not muciferous.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the squamule is muciferous.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the squamule does complect blamelessness.; int4 & sent13 -> int5: the squamule is a Mullah.; sent12 -> int6: if the squamule is a Mullah then the fact that it is a kind of bovine thing that is not a kind of a hunger is incorrect.; int5 & int6 -> int7: that the squamule is a kind of a bovine but it is not a kind of a hunger is not true.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__