the restrainer does doctor keratalgia.
sent1: the restrainer bolsters. sent2: if the sweatsuit does scramble amorality the restrainer doctors keratalgia. sent3: the fact that the restrainer scrambles amorality is correct. sent4: if the P.A. is not a kind of a sortie then the workshop is impermissible and is a kind of a toucher. sent5: the fact that the restrainer foreshows ultimatum is true if it does bolster. sent6: The fact that the amorality scrambles restrainer is correct. sent7: if the spouter does not hypothecate 1860s the fact that the propyl does foreshow ultimatum and does bolster does not hold. sent8: if something does foreshow ultimatum then it is a spume. sent9: if something does scramble amorality and it doctors keratalgia then the fact that it is not a spume is not wrong. sent10: if there are impermissible things then the spouter does not hypothecate 1860s. sent11: the P.A. is not a kind of a sortie. sent12: the Barbadian does not scramble amorality if it does hypothecate tangent and is metamorphic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the restrainer doctors keratalgia.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the restrainer scrambles amorality and it doctors keratalgia hold.; sent9 -> int2: if the restrainer scrambles amorality and doctors keratalgia then it is not a kind of a spume.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the restrainer is not a spume is true.; sent8 -> int4: if the restrainer foreshows ultimatum then it is a spume.; sent5 & sent1 -> int5: the restrainer foreshows ultimatum.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the restrainer is a spume.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the restrainer does doctor keratalgia.
sent4 & sent11 -> int8: the workshop is impermissible and it is a kind of a toucher.; int8 -> int9: the workshop is impermissible.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it is impermissible.; int10 & sent10 -> int11: the spouter does not hypothecate 1860s.; sent7 & int11 -> int12: that the propyl does foreshow ultimatum and it does bolster is incorrect.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that the fact that it foreshows ultimatum and it bolsters is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the restrainer does doctor keratalgia. ; $context$ = sent1: the restrainer bolsters. sent2: if the sweatsuit does scramble amorality the restrainer doctors keratalgia. sent3: the fact that the restrainer scrambles amorality is correct. sent4: if the P.A. is not a kind of a sortie then the workshop is impermissible and is a kind of a toucher. sent5: the fact that the restrainer foreshows ultimatum is true if it does bolster. sent6: The fact that the amorality scrambles restrainer is correct. sent7: if the spouter does not hypothecate 1860s the fact that the propyl does foreshow ultimatum and does bolster does not hold. sent8: if something does foreshow ultimatum then it is a spume. sent9: if something does scramble amorality and it doctors keratalgia then the fact that it is not a spume is not wrong. sent10: if there are impermissible things then the spouter does not hypothecate 1860s. sent11: the P.A. is not a kind of a sortie. sent12: the Barbadian does not scramble amorality if it does hypothecate tangent and is metamorphic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the restrainer doctors keratalgia.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the restrainer scrambles amorality and it doctors keratalgia hold.; sent9 -> int2: if the restrainer scrambles amorality and doctors keratalgia then it is not a kind of a spume.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the restrainer is not a spume is true.; sent8 -> int4: if the restrainer foreshows ultimatum then it is a spume.; sent5 & sent1 -> int5: the restrainer foreshows ultimatum.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the restrainer is a spume.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__