the fact that if the coneflower does shade the esmolol is non-unreceptive thing that is a sophisticate does not hold.
sent1: the stoat accords wish-wash if the coneflower does accords wish-wash. sent2: the fact that the esmolol is both bilabial and a compounded is not right if there are non-bilabial things. sent3: the coneflower is an imperfection that is hyperthermal. sent4: the fact that the bombardon accords turnip is not wrong. sent5: the esmolol does not accord turnip if the fact that the parthenote is a kind of a Medoc that does not accord wish-wash is incorrect. sent6: the coneflower does accord wish-wash and is a kind of a Medoc. sent7: if something does not accord turnip it is not unreceptive. sent8: if something that does accord wish-wash does not accord turnip then it is not a kind of a shade. sent9: the parthenote does not compound if the esmolol does accord violinist. sent10: the coneflower is virtuous. sent11: if the fact that the bombardon does not accord turnip is not wrong then the fact that the esmolol accords wish-wash but it does not accord turnip is not right. sent12: the esmolol is not a tyramine if the fact that it is a bilabial and compounded does not hold. sent13: the esmolol is a kind of a sophisticate that does accord violinist if it is not a tyramine. sent14: the ration accords turnip. sent15: there is something such that it is not a bilabial. sent16: that something is virtuous thing that is a reproducer is not correct if the fact that it is not a shade hold. sent17: the bombardon is not a tyramine if the fact that the esmolol is a sophisticate but it does not accord wish-wash is wrong. sent18: if the bombardon does not accord wish-wash then the fact that the parthenote is a kind of a Medoc that does not accord wish-wash is not right. sent19: something that does not accord violinist and is not a sophisticate is not unreceptive. sent20: the esmolol accords wish-wash. sent21: if the coneflower is both a shade and virtuous the bombardon does not accord wish-wash. sent22: if the esmolol does accord wish-wash and is bilabial the fact that the parthenote is not virtuous is not wrong. sent23: the esmolol is not hyperthermal. sent24: the stoat does not accord turnip if there is something such that it is not unreceptive.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the coneflower is a kind of a shade.; assump1 & sent10 -> int1: the coneflower is a kind of a shade and it is virtuous.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the bombardon does not accord wish-wash.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: that the parthenote is a kind of a Medoc and does not accord wish-wash is wrong.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: that the esmolol does not accord turnip hold.; sent7 -> int5: if the esmolol does not accord turnip it is not unreceptive.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the esmolol is not unreceptive.; sent15 & sent2 -> int7: that the esmolol is both a bilabial and compounded is not correct.; sent12 & int7 -> int8: the esmolol is not a kind of a tyramine.; sent13 & int8 -> int9: the esmolol is a kind of a sophisticate that accords violinist.; int9 -> int10: the esmolol sophisticates.; int6 & int10 -> int11: the esmolol is not unreceptive and is a kind of a sophisticate.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
that the stoat is virtuous and it is a reproducer is wrong.
sent8 -> int12: if the stoat accords wish-wash but it does not accord turnip it is not a shade.; sent19 -> int13: if the parthenote does not accord violinist and it does not sophisticate it is not unreceptive.; sent6 -> int14: the coneflower does accord wish-wash.; int14 & sent1 -> int15: the stoat accords wish-wash.; sent16 -> int16: if the stoat is not a kind of a shade then that it is virtuous and it is a reproducer does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the coneflower does shade the esmolol is non-unreceptive thing that is a sophisticate does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the stoat accords wish-wash if the coneflower does accords wish-wash. sent2: the fact that the esmolol is both bilabial and a compounded is not right if there are non-bilabial things. sent3: the coneflower is an imperfection that is hyperthermal. sent4: the fact that the bombardon accords turnip is not wrong. sent5: the esmolol does not accord turnip if the fact that the parthenote is a kind of a Medoc that does not accord wish-wash is incorrect. sent6: the coneflower does accord wish-wash and is a kind of a Medoc. sent7: if something does not accord turnip it is not unreceptive. sent8: if something that does accord wish-wash does not accord turnip then it is not a kind of a shade. sent9: the parthenote does not compound if the esmolol does accord violinist. sent10: the coneflower is virtuous. sent11: if the fact that the bombardon does not accord turnip is not wrong then the fact that the esmolol accords wish-wash but it does not accord turnip is not right. sent12: the esmolol is not a tyramine if the fact that it is a bilabial and compounded does not hold. sent13: the esmolol is a kind of a sophisticate that does accord violinist if it is not a tyramine. sent14: the ration accords turnip. sent15: there is something such that it is not a bilabial. sent16: that something is virtuous thing that is a reproducer is not correct if the fact that it is not a shade hold. sent17: the bombardon is not a tyramine if the fact that the esmolol is a sophisticate but it does not accord wish-wash is wrong. sent18: if the bombardon does not accord wish-wash then the fact that the parthenote is a kind of a Medoc that does not accord wish-wash is not right. sent19: something that does not accord violinist and is not a sophisticate is not unreceptive. sent20: the esmolol accords wish-wash. sent21: if the coneflower is both a shade and virtuous the bombardon does not accord wish-wash. sent22: if the esmolol does accord wish-wash and is bilabial the fact that the parthenote is not virtuous is not wrong. sent23: the esmolol is not hyperthermal. sent24: the stoat does not accord turnip if there is something such that it is not unreceptive. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the coneflower is a kind of a shade.; assump1 & sent10 -> int1: the coneflower is a kind of a shade and it is virtuous.; int1 & sent21 -> int2: the bombardon does not accord wish-wash.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: that the parthenote is a kind of a Medoc and does not accord wish-wash is wrong.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: that the esmolol does not accord turnip hold.; sent7 -> int5: if the esmolol does not accord turnip it is not unreceptive.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the esmolol is not unreceptive.; sent15 & sent2 -> int7: that the esmolol is both a bilabial and compounded is not correct.; sent12 & int7 -> int8: the esmolol is not a kind of a tyramine.; sent13 & int8 -> int9: the esmolol is a kind of a sophisticate that accords violinist.; int9 -> int10: the esmolol sophisticates.; int6 & int10 -> int11: the esmolol is not unreceptive and is a kind of a sophisticate.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__