the brethren wraps buddleia and is not a kind of an elegance.
sent1: something is autumnal if it is a unfitness. sent2: the pinecone does not hunger UHF if it is a banshee. sent3: the Navaho is a unfitness or it overlaps or both. sent4: something does wrap defendant if it is a Bahai. sent5: the Navaho is a bandit. sent6: the brethren is a unfitness. sent7: something is a unfitness if it does wrap defendant. sent8: the fact that the brethren does wrap buddleia and is an elegance is wrong. sent9: if something is therapeutics or it satisfies or both then it is not a associationism. sent10: something is a kind of an elegance if it is a banshee. sent11: the fact that the brethren wraps buddleia but it is not an elegance is false if the Navaho is autumnal. sent12: if the fact that something is a kind of a banshee hold then it does not hunger UHF. sent13: something is antitypic if it is senatorial. sent14: the pinecone hungers nurturance and/or it is a banshee if the Navaho is not a kind of a Bahai. sent15: if the Navaho is a laureled then the fact that it hungers nurturance is true. sent16: the pinecone is exergonic if the fact that it is a banshee is not incorrect. sent17: the pinecone wraps defendant. sent18: the pinecone is uncreative. sent19: if something does hunger nurturance and/or it is a banshee then it does not hunger UHF. sent20: the pinecone is a kind of a bandit and hungers UHF. sent21: the pinecone wraps buddleia.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Navaho is not a kind of a Bahai.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the pinecone does hunger nurturance or it is a kind of a banshee or both.; sent19 -> int2: the pinecone does not hunger UHF if it either hungers nurturance or is a banshee or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pinecone does not hunger UHF.; sent20 -> int4: the pinecone hungers UHF.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the Navaho is a kind of a Bahai.; sent4 -> int7: the Navaho wraps defendant if it is Bahai.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the Navaho does wrap defendant.; sent7 -> int9: if the Navaho wraps defendant then it is a kind of a unfitness.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the Navaho is a kind of a unfitness.; sent1 -> int11: if the Navaho is a kind of a unfitness then it is autumnal.; int10 & int11 -> int12: that the Navaho is autumnal is not incorrect.; int12 & sent11 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the brethren wraps buddleia and is not a kind of an elegance. ; $context$ = sent1: something is autumnal if it is a unfitness. sent2: the pinecone does not hunger UHF if it is a banshee. sent3: the Navaho is a unfitness or it overlaps or both. sent4: something does wrap defendant if it is a Bahai. sent5: the Navaho is a bandit. sent6: the brethren is a unfitness. sent7: something is a unfitness if it does wrap defendant. sent8: the fact that the brethren does wrap buddleia and is an elegance is wrong. sent9: if something is therapeutics or it satisfies or both then it is not a associationism. sent10: something is a kind of an elegance if it is a banshee. sent11: the fact that the brethren wraps buddleia but it is not an elegance is false if the Navaho is autumnal. sent12: if the fact that something is a kind of a banshee hold then it does not hunger UHF. sent13: something is antitypic if it is senatorial. sent14: the pinecone hungers nurturance and/or it is a banshee if the Navaho is not a kind of a Bahai. sent15: if the Navaho is a laureled then the fact that it hungers nurturance is true. sent16: the pinecone is exergonic if the fact that it is a banshee is not incorrect. sent17: the pinecone wraps defendant. sent18: the pinecone is uncreative. sent19: if something does hunger nurturance and/or it is a banshee then it does not hunger UHF. sent20: the pinecone is a kind of a bandit and hungers UHF. sent21: the pinecone wraps buddleia. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Navaho is not a kind of a Bahai.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: the pinecone does hunger nurturance or it is a kind of a banshee or both.; sent19 -> int2: the pinecone does not hunger UHF if it either hungers nurturance or is a banshee or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pinecone does not hunger UHF.; sent20 -> int4: the pinecone hungers UHF.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the Navaho is a kind of a Bahai.; sent4 -> int7: the Navaho wraps defendant if it is Bahai.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the Navaho does wrap defendant.; sent7 -> int9: if the Navaho wraps defendant then it is a kind of a unfitness.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the Navaho is a kind of a unfitness.; sent1 -> int11: if the Navaho is a kind of a unfitness then it is autumnal.; int10 & int11 -> int12: that the Navaho is autumnal is not incorrect.; int12 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__