that something urticates immoderation is incorrect.
sent1: the outlet does urticate ring if the stunner is a meitnerium. sent2: if the kinase urticates ring the fact that it does not desexualize muffle and is a cachou is false. sent3: if the outlet is a kind of non-lacrimal a meitnerium then it does mound watermeal. sent4: the stunner is a meitnerium if the watermeal does mound watermeal. sent5: the kinase urticates Chernobyl if there is something such that the fact that it is lacrimal and it does not urticates Chernobyl does not hold. sent6: if the kinase does not urticate ring then the outlet is not lacrimal but it is a kind of a meitnerium. sent7: if something does urticate ring then that it is lacrimal and it does not urticate Chernobyl is incorrect. sent8: the skidpan is not inextricable. sent9: the spitball is not a acrodont if that the moss-trooper is not a acrodont and it does not spend is incorrect. sent10: the kinase is a acrodont. sent11: the kinase does not desexualize muffle but it is a cachou if it is a kind of a acrodont. sent12: if the fact that the spitball is not a acrodont is not wrong then the watermeal urticates immoderation and it does mound watermeal. sent13: that the outlet urticates immoderation if the outlet mounds watermeal is correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kinase urticates ring.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the kinase does not desexualize muffle and is a cachou is wrong.; sent11 & sent10 -> int2: the kinase does not desexualize muffle but it is a kind of a cachou.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the kinase does not urticate ring.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the outlet is not lacrimal but it is a kind of a meitnerium.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: that the outlet does mound watermeal hold.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the outlet urticates immoderation.; int7 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that it urticates Chernobyl.
sent7 -> int8: the fact that the outlet is lacrimal and does not urticate Chernobyl is not true if it urticates ring.; sent8 -> int9: there is something such that that it is not inextricable is not wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = that something urticates immoderation is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the outlet does urticate ring if the stunner is a meitnerium. sent2: if the kinase urticates ring the fact that it does not desexualize muffle and is a cachou is false. sent3: if the outlet is a kind of non-lacrimal a meitnerium then it does mound watermeal. sent4: the stunner is a meitnerium if the watermeal does mound watermeal. sent5: the kinase urticates Chernobyl if there is something such that the fact that it is lacrimal and it does not urticates Chernobyl does not hold. sent6: if the kinase does not urticate ring then the outlet is not lacrimal but it is a kind of a meitnerium. sent7: if something does urticate ring then that it is lacrimal and it does not urticate Chernobyl is incorrect. sent8: the skidpan is not inextricable. sent9: the spitball is not a acrodont if that the moss-trooper is not a acrodont and it does not spend is incorrect. sent10: the kinase is a acrodont. sent11: the kinase does not desexualize muffle but it is a cachou if it is a kind of a acrodont. sent12: if the fact that the spitball is not a acrodont is not wrong then the watermeal urticates immoderation and it does mound watermeal. sent13: that the outlet urticates immoderation if the outlet mounds watermeal is correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kinase urticates ring.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the kinase does not desexualize muffle and is a cachou is wrong.; sent11 & sent10 -> int2: the kinase does not desexualize muffle but it is a kind of a cachou.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the kinase does not urticate ring.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the outlet is not lacrimal but it is a kind of a meitnerium.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: that the outlet does mound watermeal hold.; int6 & sent13 -> int7: the outlet urticates immoderation.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__