that the perijove does backstop Lilo and it is sensible is not correct.
sent1: that the lionfish does not hound vicegerent is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Fabianism and is not lenten is not right. sent2: if the fact that something does backstop assumption and does not backstop Aphrodite is false then it is not sensible. sent3: something is cerebrovascular and it is a Skeat. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a horticulturist and it is inquisitorial then the vicegerent backstops assumption. sent5: if the Lilo backstops Aphrodite it is not sensible. sent6: if the Lilo is not sensible the perijove backstops Lilo and it is sensible. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Fabianism and it is lenten is not right. sent8: the fact that the lionfish is a Fabianism and it does hound vicegerent is wrong if the bornite is a Fabianism. sent9: the fact that the bornite is not a kind of a Fabianism but it is lenten is not true. sent10: the lionfish does not hound vicegerent if something is lenten. sent11: the fact that the bornite is both not a Fabianism and not lenten is false. sent12: if the vicegerent does backstop assumption the fact that the Lilo does backstop assumption and does not backstop Aphrodite is wrong. sent13: if something does not hound vicegerent then it is a horticulturist. sent14: something is a kind of a horticulturist and it is inquisitorial if it does not hound vicegerent. sent15: the fact that the vicegerent is not congruent is not false. sent16: the lionfish is a kind of a horticulturist. sent17: that the perijove does backstop Lilo hold. sent18: there exists something such that it does not hound maverick and it is not an octane. sent19: the fact that the fact that the vicegerent backstops assumption but it is not lenten does not hold is not wrong.
sent11 -> int1: there is something such that that it is both not a Fabianism and not lenten is not true.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the lionfish does not hound vicegerent.; sent14 -> int3: the lionfish is a horticulturist and is inquisitorial if it does not hound vicegerent.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the lionfish is a horticulturist and it is not non-inquisitorial.; int4 -> int5: something is a horticulturist that is inquisitorial.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the vicegerent backstops assumption.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: that the Lilo does backstop assumption but it does not backstop Aphrodite is not right.; sent2 -> int8: the fact that the Lilo is not sensible is true if the fact that it backstops assumption and does not backstop Aphrodite does not hold.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the Lilo is not sensible.; int9 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the perijove does backstop Lilo and it is sensible is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the lionfish does not hound vicegerent is correct if there is something such that the fact that it is not a Fabianism and is not lenten is not right. sent2: if the fact that something does backstop assumption and does not backstop Aphrodite is false then it is not sensible. sent3: something is cerebrovascular and it is a Skeat. sent4: if there exists something such that it is a horticulturist and it is inquisitorial then the vicegerent backstops assumption. sent5: if the Lilo backstops Aphrodite it is not sensible. sent6: if the Lilo is not sensible the perijove backstops Lilo and it is sensible. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Fabianism and it is lenten is not right. sent8: the fact that the lionfish is a Fabianism and it does hound vicegerent is wrong if the bornite is a Fabianism. sent9: the fact that the bornite is not a kind of a Fabianism but it is lenten is not true. sent10: the lionfish does not hound vicegerent if something is lenten. sent11: the fact that the bornite is both not a Fabianism and not lenten is false. sent12: if the vicegerent does backstop assumption the fact that the Lilo does backstop assumption and does not backstop Aphrodite is wrong. sent13: if something does not hound vicegerent then it is a horticulturist. sent14: something is a kind of a horticulturist and it is inquisitorial if it does not hound vicegerent. sent15: the fact that the vicegerent is not congruent is not false. sent16: the lionfish is a kind of a horticulturist. sent17: that the perijove does backstop Lilo hold. sent18: there exists something such that it does not hound maverick and it is not an octane. sent19: the fact that the fact that the vicegerent backstops assumption but it is not lenten does not hold is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: there is something such that that it is both not a Fabianism and not lenten is not true.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the lionfish does not hound vicegerent.; sent14 -> int3: the lionfish is a horticulturist and is inquisitorial if it does not hound vicegerent.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the lionfish is a horticulturist and it is not non-inquisitorial.; int4 -> int5: something is a horticulturist that is inquisitorial.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the vicegerent backstops assumption.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: that the Lilo does backstop assumption but it does not backstop Aphrodite is not right.; sent2 -> int8: the fact that the Lilo is not sensible is true if the fact that it backstops assumption and does not backstop Aphrodite does not hold.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the Lilo is not sensible.; int9 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__