the cordovan is a convincingness.
sent1: that the fact that the slurry is inquisitorial thing that does not cutinize is right is incorrect if the catacomb is not inquisitorial. sent2: the telephotograph is a bribery. sent3: everything is a kind of a parka or it is not a singles or both. sent4: the catacomb is not a furtiveness. sent5: that the cordovan is not a convincingness if the fact that the slurry is a kind of inquisitorial thing that does not cutinize is wrong hold. sent6: the chocolate is not a gather. sent7: the slurry is not a convincingness. sent8: the fact that the chocolate does not prey censored is right. sent9: if the chocolate does augur and/or it is not maxillofacial then the catacomb is not a gather. sent10: that something does not prey censored hold if it is inquisitorial and is not a kind of a gather. sent11: the fact that everything is an augur and/or not maxillofacial is right. sent12: the catacomb preys censored and sculpts if there exists something such that it is a bribery.
sent11 -> int1: the chocolate is an augur and/or it is not maxillofacial.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the catacomb does not gather.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the catacomb is inquisitorial.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the catacomb is inquisitorial but it does not gather.; sent10 -> int4: the catacomb does not prey censored if it is inquisitorial and it is not a gather.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the catacomb does not prey censored is not wrong.; sent2 -> int6: there is something such that it is a kind of a bribery.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: that the catacomb preys censored and it sculpts is not false.; int7 -> int8: the catacomb does prey censored.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the catacomb is not inquisitorial.; int10 & sent1 -> int11: that the slurry is inquisitorial but it does not cutinize is false.; int11 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the cordovan is a convincingness. ; $context$ = sent1: that the fact that the slurry is inquisitorial thing that does not cutinize is right is incorrect if the catacomb is not inquisitorial. sent2: the telephotograph is a bribery. sent3: everything is a kind of a parka or it is not a singles or both. sent4: the catacomb is not a furtiveness. sent5: that the cordovan is not a convincingness if the fact that the slurry is a kind of inquisitorial thing that does not cutinize is wrong hold. sent6: the chocolate is not a gather. sent7: the slurry is not a convincingness. sent8: the fact that the chocolate does not prey censored is right. sent9: if the chocolate does augur and/or it is not maxillofacial then the catacomb is not a gather. sent10: that something does not prey censored hold if it is inquisitorial and is not a kind of a gather. sent11: the fact that everything is an augur and/or not maxillofacial is right. sent12: the catacomb preys censored and sculpts if there exists something such that it is a bribery. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: the chocolate is an augur and/or it is not maxillofacial.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the catacomb does not gather.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the catacomb is inquisitorial.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the catacomb is inquisitorial but it does not gather.; sent10 -> int4: the catacomb does not prey censored if it is inquisitorial and it is not a gather.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the catacomb does not prey censored is not wrong.; sent2 -> int6: there is something such that it is a kind of a bribery.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: that the catacomb preys censored and it sculpts is not false.; int7 -> int8: the catacomb does prey censored.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the catacomb is not inquisitorial.; int10 & sent1 -> int11: that the slurry is inquisitorial but it does not cutinize is false.; int11 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__