the Trinidadian is not an efferent.
sent1: something is not a strike if it does not overtake. sent2: the fact that the Trinidadian does torture Karloff if the fact that the Trinidadian is not entomological is not false hold. sent3: a non-disagreeable thing is not a Lama. sent4: either the abrasive does not honey airheaded or it is not an efferent or both. sent5: either the abrasive is not a kind of an efferent or it does not honey airheaded or both. sent6: the Trinidadian does honey airheaded. sent7: the abrasive does not honey airheaded if it is not a Liriope. sent8: the abrasive is not a Tunisian if it is an efferent. sent9: that the Trinidadian is entomological is true if the abrasive is not an efferent. sent10: if the fact that the abrasive is not an efferent and/or it does not honey airheaded is false then it is not agreeable. sent11: if something is not disagreeable it is a Lama. sent12: if that the abrasive is not entomological is correct then it is not a Lama. sent13: that the Trinidadian is not disjunct and/or is not a Tunisian is wrong. sent14: if that something is not a Lama and/or is disagreeable is false then it is entomological. sent15: if the abrasive is not non-Tunisian and/or it does interdict goatsbeard it does not honey airheaded. sent16: the Trinidadian does not torture Tayalic. sent17: the Trinidadian is disagreeable. sent18: the Trinidadian is an efferent if the abrasive does not honey airheaded. sent19: something is Tunisian if that it is not disagreeable and/or it is not entomological is not correct. sent20: if the fact that something is non-Tunisian or does not honey airheaded or both is not correct then it is a Lama. sent21: the Trinidadian does not honey airheaded if it is a meterstick. sent22: the Trinidadian is a takin. sent23: if the bedpan does not torture spironolactone then it tortures Karloff. sent24: the abrasive is a Lama. sent25: the Trinidadian does interdict goatsbeard. sent26: either the Acadian is not entomological or it is not a whiptail or both.
sent3 -> int1: the abrasive is not a Lama if that it is not disagreeable is not wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the abrasive is agreeable or it is not entomological or both.; int1 & assump1 & sent12 -> int2: the abrasive is not a Lama.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the abrasive is agreeable and/or it is not entomological does not hold.; sent19 -> int5: the abrasive is a Tunisian if that it is not disagreeable and/or it is not entomological is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the abrasive is a kind of a Tunisian is correct.; int6 -> int7: the abrasive is a Tunisian and/or interdicts goatsbeard.; int7 & sent15 -> int8: the abrasive does not honey airheaded.; int8 & sent18 -> hypothesis;
the ovum is not noncombustible and/or it is a aneurysm.
sent14 -> int9: that the Trinidadian is entomological if that the Trinidadian is not a Lama and/or is disagreeable is false hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the Trinidadian is not an efferent. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a strike if it does not overtake. sent2: the fact that the Trinidadian does torture Karloff if the fact that the Trinidadian is not entomological is not false hold. sent3: a non-disagreeable thing is not a Lama. sent4: either the abrasive does not honey airheaded or it is not an efferent or both. sent5: either the abrasive is not a kind of an efferent or it does not honey airheaded or both. sent6: the Trinidadian does honey airheaded. sent7: the abrasive does not honey airheaded if it is not a Liriope. sent8: the abrasive is not a Tunisian if it is an efferent. sent9: that the Trinidadian is entomological is true if the abrasive is not an efferent. sent10: if the fact that the abrasive is not an efferent and/or it does not honey airheaded is false then it is not agreeable. sent11: if something is not disagreeable it is a Lama. sent12: if that the abrasive is not entomological is correct then it is not a Lama. sent13: that the Trinidadian is not disjunct and/or is not a Tunisian is wrong. sent14: if that something is not a Lama and/or is disagreeable is false then it is entomological. sent15: if the abrasive is not non-Tunisian and/or it does interdict goatsbeard it does not honey airheaded. sent16: the Trinidadian does not torture Tayalic. sent17: the Trinidadian is disagreeable. sent18: the Trinidadian is an efferent if the abrasive does not honey airheaded. sent19: something is Tunisian if that it is not disagreeable and/or it is not entomological is not correct. sent20: if the fact that something is non-Tunisian or does not honey airheaded or both is not correct then it is a Lama. sent21: the Trinidadian does not honey airheaded if it is a meterstick. sent22: the Trinidadian is a takin. sent23: if the bedpan does not torture spironolactone then it tortures Karloff. sent24: the abrasive is a Lama. sent25: the Trinidadian does interdict goatsbeard. sent26: either the Acadian is not entomological or it is not a whiptail or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: the abrasive is not a Lama if that it is not disagreeable is not wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that either the abrasive is agreeable or it is not entomological or both.; int1 & assump1 & sent12 -> int2: the abrasive is not a Lama.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the abrasive is agreeable and/or it is not entomological does not hold.; sent19 -> int5: the abrasive is a Tunisian if that it is not disagreeable and/or it is not entomological is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the abrasive is a kind of a Tunisian is correct.; int6 -> int7: the abrasive is a Tunisian and/or interdicts goatsbeard.; int7 & sent15 -> int8: the abrasive does not honey airheaded.; int8 & sent18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__