the bassoon is not a peristome.
sent1: the obstruction rationalizes snooker and/or it does sentimentalise blemish if the beldam is not a frogmouth. sent2: if something that sentimentalises blemish does rationalize porterhouse the bassoon is a peristome. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a peristome and does not confront does not hold it is not a peristome. sent4: the beldam either does rationalize snooker or is a frogmouth or both. sent5: something does not confront if it blinds and it is not a stickball. sent6: the obstruction does sentimentalise blemish if the beldam is a frogmouth. sent7: if something blinds then it is a calico. sent8: if the mezzo-soprano is not a stickball and is not a blind then the bassoon blind. sent9: the drupe is not insincere. sent10: if the beldam rationalizes snooker then the obstruction sentimentalises blemish. sent11: the cryptogam is calico if it does confront. sent12: if the obstruction does rationalize snooker then the cryptogam rationalizes porterhouse. sent13: the fact that the mezzo-soprano is a Methodism is true. sent14: if either the cryptogam blinds or it is not a stickball or both then the obstruction does rationalize porterhouse. sent15: the cryptogam confronts if the mezzo-soprano is a kind of a Methodism. sent16: something is a Methodism if that it is not calico is not right. sent17: the beldam either does sentimentalise blemish or rationalizes snooker or both. sent18: that something is a peristome but it does not confront is wrong if it is a Methodism. sent19: the bassoon sentimentalises blemish. sent20: something is blind and/or not a stickball if it is a kind of a calico. sent21: something that is not insincere is staccato thing that does not top. sent22: if the obstruction does sentimentalise blemish the cryptogam rationalizes porterhouse.
sent15 & sent13 -> int1: the cryptogam confronts.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the cryptogam is a calico.; sent20 -> int3: if the cryptogam is a calico it is blind and/or not a stickball.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the cryptogam is a blind or is not a stickball or both.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the obstruction rationalizes porterhouse.; sent4 & sent10 & sent6 -> int6: the obstruction sentimentalises blemish.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the obstruction sentimentalises blemish and it does rationalize porterhouse.; int7 -> int8: something sentimentalises blemish and does rationalize porterhouse.; int8 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the kingfish is a calico is not false.
sent5 -> int9: the mezzo-soprano does not confront if it is both a blind and not a stickball.;
$hypothesis$ = the bassoon is not a peristome. ; $context$ = sent1: the obstruction rationalizes snooker and/or it does sentimentalise blemish if the beldam is not a frogmouth. sent2: if something that sentimentalises blemish does rationalize porterhouse the bassoon is a peristome. sent3: if the fact that something is a kind of a peristome and does not confront does not hold it is not a peristome. sent4: the beldam either does rationalize snooker or is a frogmouth or both. sent5: something does not confront if it blinds and it is not a stickball. sent6: the obstruction does sentimentalise blemish if the beldam is a frogmouth. sent7: if something blinds then it is a calico. sent8: if the mezzo-soprano is not a stickball and is not a blind then the bassoon blind. sent9: the drupe is not insincere. sent10: if the beldam rationalizes snooker then the obstruction sentimentalises blemish. sent11: the cryptogam is calico if it does confront. sent12: if the obstruction does rationalize snooker then the cryptogam rationalizes porterhouse. sent13: the fact that the mezzo-soprano is a Methodism is true. sent14: if either the cryptogam blinds or it is not a stickball or both then the obstruction does rationalize porterhouse. sent15: the cryptogam confronts if the mezzo-soprano is a kind of a Methodism. sent16: something is a Methodism if that it is not calico is not right. sent17: the beldam either does sentimentalise blemish or rationalizes snooker or both. sent18: that something is a peristome but it does not confront is wrong if it is a Methodism. sent19: the bassoon sentimentalises blemish. sent20: something is blind and/or not a stickball if it is a kind of a calico. sent21: something that is not insincere is staccato thing that does not top. sent22: if the obstruction does sentimentalise blemish the cryptogam rationalizes porterhouse. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 & sent13 -> int1: the cryptogam confronts.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the cryptogam is a calico.; sent20 -> int3: if the cryptogam is a calico it is blind and/or not a stickball.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the cryptogam is a blind or is not a stickball or both.; int4 & sent14 -> int5: the obstruction rationalizes porterhouse.; sent4 & sent10 & sent6 -> int6: the obstruction sentimentalises blemish.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the obstruction sentimentalises blemish and it does rationalize porterhouse.; int7 -> int8: something sentimentalises blemish and does rationalize porterhouse.; int8 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__