the facilitator is a kind of a menhir and it nags holystone.
sent1: the fact that the facilitator is not positional does not hold. sent2: if the fact that something is a Mahler but it does not nag potpie is not correct it is alkalotic. sent3: the fact that the cards does chomp mock-heroic and it does nag holystone is wrong if the facilitator does not chomp washout. sent4: if the facilitator is a Mahler that it chomps washout and is a menhir is not true. sent5: if the fact that something is a party but it is not a mustelid is not right then it does nag aggrandizement. sent6: if that the cards is a kind of a menhir but it does not nag potpie is not true it chomps washout. sent7: the facilitator chomps 1760s. sent8: that the cards is not alkalotic and it is not rectal is not correct if it is a Mahler. sent9: the facilitator is a menhir if that the cards is not alkalotic and it is not rectal does not hold. sent10: that the cards is a Mahler and it does nag potpie is incorrect if it does chomp mock-heroic. sent11: if the fact that something does nag potpie and does not nag holystone is not true then that it is a kind of a menhir is true. sent12: if something does not chomp mock-heroic then it does chomp washout and it nags holystone. sent13: that the facilitator is a kind of a Mahler but it does not nag holystone is not true if it does chomp mock-heroic. sent14: something is rectal if it nags holystone. sent15: the cards chomps mock-heroic. sent16: the ordinary is rectal. sent17: the cards is rectal. sent18: the cards is not alkalotic if it chomps washout and it is rectal. sent19: if the cards does not chomp washout then that the facilitator is a menhir and it nags holystone is incorrect. sent20: a campus does tarnish powwow. sent21: that the fact that that the facilitator nags holystone and is a Mahler is incorrect is not false if the fact that the cards does not chomp mock-heroic is not wrong is not false. sent22: that the cards is a Mahler but it does not nag potpie is wrong if it chomps mock-heroic. sent23: The mock-heroic chomps cards.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cards does chomp washout.; assump1 & sent17 -> int1: the cards does chomp washout and it is rectal.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the cards is not alkalotic.; sent2 -> int3: the cards is alkalotic if that it is a Mahler that does not nag potpie does not hold.; sent22 & sent15 -> int4: the fact that the cards is a kind of a Mahler but it does not nag potpie is not right.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the cards is alkalotic.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the cards does not chomp washout.; int7 & sent19 -> hypothesis;
the facilitator is a menhir and it does nag holystone.
sent12 -> int8: the facilitator does chomp washout and it nags holystone if it does not chomp mock-heroic.;
$hypothesis$ = the facilitator is a kind of a menhir and it nags holystone. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the facilitator is not positional does not hold. sent2: if the fact that something is a Mahler but it does not nag potpie is not correct it is alkalotic. sent3: the fact that the cards does chomp mock-heroic and it does nag holystone is wrong if the facilitator does not chomp washout. sent4: if the facilitator is a Mahler that it chomps washout and is a menhir is not true. sent5: if the fact that something is a party but it is not a mustelid is not right then it does nag aggrandizement. sent6: if that the cards is a kind of a menhir but it does not nag potpie is not true it chomps washout. sent7: the facilitator chomps 1760s. sent8: that the cards is not alkalotic and it is not rectal is not correct if it is a Mahler. sent9: the facilitator is a menhir if that the cards is not alkalotic and it is not rectal does not hold. sent10: that the cards is a Mahler and it does nag potpie is incorrect if it does chomp mock-heroic. sent11: if the fact that something does nag potpie and does not nag holystone is not true then that it is a kind of a menhir is true. sent12: if something does not chomp mock-heroic then it does chomp washout and it nags holystone. sent13: that the facilitator is a kind of a Mahler but it does not nag holystone is not true if it does chomp mock-heroic. sent14: something is rectal if it nags holystone. sent15: the cards chomps mock-heroic. sent16: the ordinary is rectal. sent17: the cards is rectal. sent18: the cards is not alkalotic if it chomps washout and it is rectal. sent19: if the cards does not chomp washout then that the facilitator is a menhir and it nags holystone is incorrect. sent20: a campus does tarnish powwow. sent21: that the fact that that the facilitator nags holystone and is a Mahler is incorrect is not false if the fact that the cards does not chomp mock-heroic is not wrong is not false. sent22: that the cards is a Mahler but it does not nag potpie is wrong if it chomps mock-heroic. sent23: The mock-heroic chomps cards. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cards does chomp washout.; assump1 & sent17 -> int1: the cards does chomp washout and it is rectal.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the cards is not alkalotic.; sent2 -> int3: the cards is alkalotic if that it is a Mahler that does not nag potpie does not hold.; sent22 & sent15 -> int4: the fact that the cards is a kind of a Mahler but it does not nag potpie is not right.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the cards is alkalotic.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the cards does not chomp washout.; int7 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__