the habitation does undercut Tahiti and is not non-mononuclear.
sent1: if that something does not undercut simper hold the fact that it does undercut Tahiti and is mononuclear is not true. sent2: if something behooves then the fact that it is a nonconformist and is not mucopurulent is not true. sent3: the Assamese does not behoove and does not undercut kwashiorkor if the paleencephalon is not a nonconformist. sent4: there exists something such that it is not urinary. sent5: if the runner-up is not mucopurulent but it is mononuclear the habitation is mononuclear. sent6: if that the loggerhead is a hieratic but it is not part-time is wrong then it does not undercut simper. sent7: that if that something does undercut kwashiorkor but it does not induce titanium is not correct it does behoove is not false. sent8: there is something such that it does disapprove Durkheim. sent9: if the runner-up induces titanium it does behoove. sent10: if the Assamese does not behoove and does not undercut kwashiorkor the habitation undercut kwashiorkor. sent11: the habitation does not undercut simper if the runner-up is mucopurulent. sent12: if the loggerhead does not undercut simper then the runner-up is both non-mucopurulent and not non-mononuclear. sent13: if the Assamese does not induce titanium the fact that the fact that the runner-up undercuts kwashiorkor and does induce titanium is incorrect is correct. sent14: there exists something such that it is urinary and disapproves Durkheim. sent15: something is not urinary but it does disapprove Durkheim. sent16: if the fact that the Assamese does not induce titanium is not wrong then the fact that the runner-up does undercut kwashiorkor but it does not induce titanium is incorrect. sent17: that the habitation does not undercut simper is not wrong if that the fact that the runner-up is nonconformist thing that is non-mucopurulent is right does not hold. sent18: that the Assamese induces titanium and does not undercut Tahiti is not true. sent19: if something does undercut kwashiorkor it undercuts Tahiti and it does not induce titanium. sent20: that the Assamese is a nonconformist and not British is false. sent21: the fact that if there exists something such that it is not urinary and does disapprove Durkheim the Assamese does not induce titanium hold. sent22: if the fact that something is a toby that is not Michelangelesque is wrong then it is a kind of a confederate. sent23: if the runner-up behooves the fact that it is a nonconformist that is mucopurulent is incorrect. sent24: the fact that something is nonconformist and is mucopurulent is not right if it does behoove. sent25: the fact that the runner-up is not conformist and it is mucopurulent does not hold. sent26: the habitation does not disapprove Durkheim. sent27: that the runner-up undercuts kwashiorkor and does induce titanium is wrong.
sent15 & sent21 -> int1: the Assamese does not induce titanium.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: that the runner-up does undercut kwashiorkor but it does not induce titanium does not hold.; sent7 -> int3: if the fact that the runner-up does undercut kwashiorkor and does not induce titanium does not hold then it does behoove.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the runner-up does behoove.; sent2 -> int5: that the runner-up is a nonconformist that is not mucopurulent is not correct if it does behoove.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the runner-up is both nonconformist and not mucopurulent does not hold.; int6 & sent17 -> int7: the habitation does not undercut simper.; sent1 -> int8: the fact that the habitation does undercut Tahiti and it is mononuclear is not true if it does not undercut simper.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the habitation does undercut Tahiti and it is mononuclear.
sent19 -> int9: the habitation does undercut Tahiti and does not induce titanium if it does undercut kwashiorkor.;
$hypothesis$ = the habitation does undercut Tahiti and is not non-mononuclear. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not undercut simper hold the fact that it does undercut Tahiti and is mononuclear is not true. sent2: if something behooves then the fact that it is a nonconformist and is not mucopurulent is not true. sent3: the Assamese does not behoove and does not undercut kwashiorkor if the paleencephalon is not a nonconformist. sent4: there exists something such that it is not urinary. sent5: if the runner-up is not mucopurulent but it is mononuclear the habitation is mononuclear. sent6: if that the loggerhead is a hieratic but it is not part-time is wrong then it does not undercut simper. sent7: that if that something does undercut kwashiorkor but it does not induce titanium is not correct it does behoove is not false. sent8: there is something such that it does disapprove Durkheim. sent9: if the runner-up induces titanium it does behoove. sent10: if the Assamese does not behoove and does not undercut kwashiorkor the habitation undercut kwashiorkor. sent11: the habitation does not undercut simper if the runner-up is mucopurulent. sent12: if the loggerhead does not undercut simper then the runner-up is both non-mucopurulent and not non-mononuclear. sent13: if the Assamese does not induce titanium the fact that the fact that the runner-up undercuts kwashiorkor and does induce titanium is incorrect is correct. sent14: there exists something such that it is urinary and disapproves Durkheim. sent15: something is not urinary but it does disapprove Durkheim. sent16: if the fact that the Assamese does not induce titanium is not wrong then the fact that the runner-up does undercut kwashiorkor but it does not induce titanium is incorrect. sent17: that the habitation does not undercut simper is not wrong if that the fact that the runner-up is nonconformist thing that is non-mucopurulent is right does not hold. sent18: that the Assamese induces titanium and does not undercut Tahiti is not true. sent19: if something does undercut kwashiorkor it undercuts Tahiti and it does not induce titanium. sent20: that the Assamese is a nonconformist and not British is false. sent21: the fact that if there exists something such that it is not urinary and does disapprove Durkheim the Assamese does not induce titanium hold. sent22: if the fact that something is a toby that is not Michelangelesque is wrong then it is a kind of a confederate. sent23: if the runner-up behooves the fact that it is a nonconformist that is mucopurulent is incorrect. sent24: the fact that something is nonconformist and is mucopurulent is not right if it does behoove. sent25: the fact that the runner-up is not conformist and it is mucopurulent does not hold. sent26: the habitation does not disapprove Durkheim. sent27: that the runner-up undercuts kwashiorkor and does induce titanium is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 & sent21 -> int1: the Assamese does not induce titanium.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: that the runner-up does undercut kwashiorkor but it does not induce titanium does not hold.; sent7 -> int3: if the fact that the runner-up does undercut kwashiorkor and does not induce titanium does not hold then it does behoove.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the runner-up does behoove.; sent2 -> int5: that the runner-up is a nonconformist that is not mucopurulent is not correct if it does behoove.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the runner-up is both nonconformist and not mucopurulent does not hold.; int6 & sent17 -> int7: the habitation does not undercut simper.; sent1 -> int8: the fact that the habitation does undercut Tahiti and it is mononuclear is not true if it does not undercut simper.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__