the integrator is not a Chartism.
sent1: if something is not a kind of a Chartism then the fact that it does diffuse ebbtide and is not a kind of a Bolivian is not right. sent2: the fact that the hotel-casino is not a defensive and it is not tonsorial is not right if that it is gingival is true. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is not a marrow but a skiing does not hold the replication is not a kind of a bobble. sent4: the raja is a kind of a defensive but it is not tonsorial if the replication is gingival. sent5: if that the hotel-casino is not a defensive and is not tonsorial is not correct the inula is defensive. sent6: that the integrator is both a Chartism and not a defensive is false. sent7: if the fact that the hotel-casino is tonsorial hold it is a kind of a Bradbury. sent8: if the inula is not a Chartism then that the surfboard is both not a beehive and not angry is not true. sent9: the inula is a kind of a Bradbury if the hotel-casino is a kind of a Bradbury. sent10: there is something such that that it is not a brethren and it does diffuse Pawnee is not correct. sent11: the inula is a cheer if the hotel-casino is a kaon. sent12: something is a Bradbury and it is a kind of a cheer if it is not a defensive. sent13: there exists something such that that it is not a brethren and it does not diffuse Pawnee is not correct. sent14: the surfboard is gingival. sent15: if that that the surfboard is not a Bradbury and it is not a kaon is not right is not incorrect the inula is a defensive. sent16: the fact that the phaeton is not a marrow but it is a kind of a skiing is incorrect if the percolation is not non-radiolucent. sent17: if there is something such that it is a Bolivian then the surfboard is not a kind of a cheer. sent18: if there is something such that the fact that it diffuses ebbtide and it is not a Bolivian is not true the surfboard is not a cheer. sent19: the hotel-casino is gingival if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a brethren and does not diffuse Pawnee is not right. sent20: the fact that something is a kind of a brethren that does not diffuse Pawnee is not correct if it is not a kind of a bobble. sent21: if something does cheer then it is a kind of a Chartism and it is not a kaon. sent22: if the hotel-casino is a Chartism but not a kaon then the inula is not a kind of a Chartism. sent23: if the fact that the surfboard is gingival is true it is a defensive. sent24: the hotel-casino is not a kind of a defensive if the raja is a defensive but it is not tonsorial. sent25: the percolation abandons tabard and it is radiolucent. sent26: the holystone is tonsorial. sent27: if the fact that something is not a kind of a cheer is right then that it is not a Bradbury and it is not a kind of a kaon is false.
sent1 -> int1: that the integrator diffuses ebbtide but it is not a Bolivian does not hold if it is not a kind of a Chartism.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the integrator is not a Chartism.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the integrator does diffuse ebbtide but it is not Bolivian does not hold.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it diffuses ebbtide and is not a kind of a Bolivian is wrong.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the surfboard is not a cheer.; sent27 -> int5: that the surfboard is not a Bradbury and it is not a kind of a kaon is wrong if it does not cheer.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the surfboard is both not a Bradbury and not a kaon does not hold.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: the inula is a defensive.; sent13 & sent19 -> int8: the hotel-casino is gingival.; sent2 & int8 -> int9: that the hotel-casino is not defensive and it is not tonsorial is incorrect.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the inula is not a kind of a defensive.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
the integrator is not a Chartism.
sent23 & sent14 -> int12: the fact that the surfboard is a defensive hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the integrator is not a Chartism. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a Chartism then the fact that it does diffuse ebbtide and is not a kind of a Bolivian is not right. sent2: the fact that the hotel-casino is not a defensive and it is not tonsorial is not right if that it is gingival is true. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is not a marrow but a skiing does not hold the replication is not a kind of a bobble. sent4: the raja is a kind of a defensive but it is not tonsorial if the replication is gingival. sent5: if that the hotel-casino is not a defensive and is not tonsorial is not correct the inula is defensive. sent6: that the integrator is both a Chartism and not a defensive is false. sent7: if the fact that the hotel-casino is tonsorial hold it is a kind of a Bradbury. sent8: if the inula is not a Chartism then that the surfboard is both not a beehive and not angry is not true. sent9: the inula is a kind of a Bradbury if the hotel-casino is a kind of a Bradbury. sent10: there is something such that that it is not a brethren and it does diffuse Pawnee is not correct. sent11: the inula is a cheer if the hotel-casino is a kaon. sent12: something is a Bradbury and it is a kind of a cheer if it is not a defensive. sent13: there exists something such that that it is not a brethren and it does not diffuse Pawnee is not correct. sent14: the surfboard is gingival. sent15: if that that the surfboard is not a Bradbury and it is not a kaon is not right is not incorrect the inula is a defensive. sent16: the fact that the phaeton is not a marrow but it is a kind of a skiing is incorrect if the percolation is not non-radiolucent. sent17: if there is something such that it is a Bolivian then the surfboard is not a kind of a cheer. sent18: if there is something such that the fact that it diffuses ebbtide and it is not a Bolivian is not true the surfboard is not a cheer. sent19: the hotel-casino is gingival if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a brethren and does not diffuse Pawnee is not right. sent20: the fact that something is a kind of a brethren that does not diffuse Pawnee is not correct if it is not a kind of a bobble. sent21: if something does cheer then it is a kind of a Chartism and it is not a kaon. sent22: if the hotel-casino is a Chartism but not a kaon then the inula is not a kind of a Chartism. sent23: if the fact that the surfboard is gingival is true it is a defensive. sent24: the hotel-casino is not a kind of a defensive if the raja is a defensive but it is not tonsorial. sent25: the percolation abandons tabard and it is radiolucent. sent26: the holystone is tonsorial. sent27: if the fact that something is not a kind of a cheer is right then that it is not a Bradbury and it is not a kind of a kaon is false. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: that the integrator diffuses ebbtide but it is not a Bolivian does not hold if it is not a kind of a Chartism.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the integrator is not a Chartism.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the integrator does diffuse ebbtide but it is not Bolivian does not hold.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it diffuses ebbtide and is not a kind of a Bolivian is wrong.; int3 & sent18 -> int4: the surfboard is not a cheer.; sent27 -> int5: that the surfboard is not a Bradbury and it is not a kind of a kaon is wrong if it does not cheer.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the surfboard is both not a Bradbury and not a kaon does not hold.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: the inula is a defensive.; sent13 & sent19 -> int8: the hotel-casino is gingival.; sent2 & int8 -> int9: that the hotel-casino is not defensive and it is not tonsorial is incorrect.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the inula is not a kind of a defensive.; int7 & int10 -> int11: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__