the fact that if that the pigment cloaks is right then the aeciospore is a kind of a forint is incorrect.
sent1: the oriole is an appellation and it does laud. sent2: there is something such that it does reorganize. sent3: if that something is not subjective but it is a tormenter does not hold it is subjective. sent4: the fact that the fact that the ventilator is a kind of a Michael and/or it is not a forint is not false is false if the aeciospore drones Seneca. sent5: if the ventilator is not a Michael then that it does not set pigment and drones Seneca is not true. sent6: something does drone Seneca if it does clinch. sent7: the ventilator is not a kind of a Michael. sent8: the fact that that the ventilator does reorganize and it drones Seneca is true does not hold if it is not a kind of a anaglyphy. sent9: that the Seneca does not reorganize or it does cloak or both is incorrect if the pigment is not a kind of a anaglyphy. sent10: the pigment is a Michael and is a kind of a cloak. sent11: the aeciospore is a forint if something that is a kind of a anaglyphy does set pigment. sent12: something does set pigment if that it does not set pigment and it drones Seneca does not hold. sent13: if the pigment cloaks it does reorganize. sent14: if that something does not reorganize and/or it is a cloak does not hold it does not set pigment. sent15: if the pigment does reorganize the ventilator is a kind of a anaglyphy.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pigment is a kind of a cloak.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the pigment does reorganize.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: that the ventilator is a anaglyphy hold.; sent12 -> int3: if that the ventilator does not set pigment and drones Seneca is false it does set pigment.; sent5 & sent7 -> int4: that the fact that the ventilator does not set pigment but it drones Seneca is wrong is correct.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the ventilator does set pigment.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the ventilator is a anaglyphy that sets pigment.; int6 -> int7: something is a anaglyphy and does set pigment.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: the aeciospore is a kind of a forint.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the Seneca does not set pigment.
sent14 -> int9: if that the Seneca does not reorganize and/or it cloaks is incorrect it does not set pigment.; sent6 -> int10: if the aeciospore clinches that it drones Seneca is not wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if that the pigment cloaks is right then the aeciospore is a kind of a forint is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the oriole is an appellation and it does laud. sent2: there is something such that it does reorganize. sent3: if that something is not subjective but it is a tormenter does not hold it is subjective. sent4: the fact that the fact that the ventilator is a kind of a Michael and/or it is not a forint is not false is false if the aeciospore drones Seneca. sent5: if the ventilator is not a Michael then that it does not set pigment and drones Seneca is not true. sent6: something does drone Seneca if it does clinch. sent7: the ventilator is not a kind of a Michael. sent8: the fact that that the ventilator does reorganize and it drones Seneca is true does not hold if it is not a kind of a anaglyphy. sent9: that the Seneca does not reorganize or it does cloak or both is incorrect if the pigment is not a kind of a anaglyphy. sent10: the pigment is a Michael and is a kind of a cloak. sent11: the aeciospore is a forint if something that is a kind of a anaglyphy does set pigment. sent12: something does set pigment if that it does not set pigment and it drones Seneca does not hold. sent13: if the pigment cloaks it does reorganize. sent14: if that something does not reorganize and/or it is a cloak does not hold it does not set pigment. sent15: if the pigment does reorganize the ventilator is a kind of a anaglyphy. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pigment is a kind of a cloak.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the pigment does reorganize.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: that the ventilator is a anaglyphy hold.; sent12 -> int3: if that the ventilator does not set pigment and drones Seneca is false it does set pigment.; sent5 & sent7 -> int4: that the fact that the ventilator does not set pigment but it drones Seneca is wrong is correct.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the ventilator does set pigment.; int2 & int5 -> int6: the ventilator is a anaglyphy that sets pigment.; int6 -> int7: something is a anaglyphy and does set pigment.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: the aeciospore is a kind of a forint.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__