the cock-a-leekie is nectar-rich.
sent1: if that the manic-depressive does not clap but it impinges chigoe is false then the cock-a-leekie is a Nilsson. sent2: that the finial is a solicitude and it is disjunct is not correct if it does not rationalize. sent3: if the finial is nectar-rich the cock-a-leekie is nectar-rich. sent4: if something either is chorionic or is a Nilsson or both then it is non-nectar-rich. sent5: something is not nectar-rich if that it is chorionic hold. sent6: something rationalizes. sent7: that if the drawler does not clap the fact that the manic-depressive does not clap but it does impinge chigoe is not correct hold. sent8: if there exists something such that it does rationalize then that the finial blacklists thread and it is systematics is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the manic-depressive does clap and it impinges chigoe is not right if the drawler does not clap. sent10: the drawler does not clap if there is something such that that it blacklists thread and it is systematics does not hold. sent11: the fact that the cock-a-leekie is a kind of non-nectar-rich thing that does impinge chigoe is false.
sent6 & sent8 -> int1: that the finial does blacklist thread and it is systematics is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it blacklists thread and it is systematics does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the drawler does not clap.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: that the manic-depressive does not clap but it impinges chigoe does not hold.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the cock-a-leekie is a kind of a Nilsson.; int5 -> int6: the cock-a-leekie is not non-chorionic and/or it is a Nilsson.; sent4 -> int7: the cock-a-leekie is not nectar-rich if it is chorionic or it is a Nilsson or both.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis;
the cock-a-leekie is not non-nectar-rich.
$hypothesis$ = the cock-a-leekie is nectar-rich. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the manic-depressive does not clap but it impinges chigoe is false then the cock-a-leekie is a Nilsson. sent2: that the finial is a solicitude and it is disjunct is not correct if it does not rationalize. sent3: if the finial is nectar-rich the cock-a-leekie is nectar-rich. sent4: if something either is chorionic or is a Nilsson or both then it is non-nectar-rich. sent5: something is not nectar-rich if that it is chorionic hold. sent6: something rationalizes. sent7: that if the drawler does not clap the fact that the manic-depressive does not clap but it does impinge chigoe is not correct hold. sent8: if there exists something such that it does rationalize then that the finial blacklists thread and it is systematics is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the manic-depressive does clap and it impinges chigoe is not right if the drawler does not clap. sent10: the drawler does not clap if there is something such that that it blacklists thread and it is systematics does not hold. sent11: the fact that the cock-a-leekie is a kind of non-nectar-rich thing that does impinge chigoe is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent8 -> int1: that the finial does blacklist thread and it is systematics is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it blacklists thread and it is systematics does not hold.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the drawler does not clap.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: that the manic-depressive does not clap but it impinges chigoe does not hold.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the cock-a-leekie is a kind of a Nilsson.; int5 -> int6: the cock-a-leekie is not non-chorionic and/or it is a Nilsson.; sent4 -> int7: the cock-a-leekie is not nectar-rich if it is chorionic or it is a Nilsson or both.; int6 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__