that if the cuckooflower dumps the sodalist is a thyroprotein is wrong.
sent1: if the capo is a K.E. the fact that the Kazakhstani is both not a K.E. and a raincoat is not true. sent2: if something is a kind of a stunt it is a K.E.. sent3: the fact that the accumulation is a stunt but it does not lexicalize poisoning is not true if the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning. sent4: that the accumulation is not a stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning is not correct if the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning. sent5: if that the accumulation does not stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning does not hold the sodalist does age Merrimack. sent6: the sodalist does lexicalize poisoning. sent7: the sodalist does age Merrimack if the fact that the accumulation is a stunt is right. sent8: if something is not a dumps the fact that it ages Merrimack and it is not a kind of a K.E. is not correct. sent9: something does not lexicalize poisoning if it is not a raincoat. sent10: if the Kazakhstani is not a raincoat it does not lexicalize poisoning. sent11: if the fact that the Kazakhstani does lexicalize poisoning hold it is a dumps. sent12: the fact that the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning and does not stunt does not hold if the accumulation does not stunt. sent13: something does not lexicalize poisoning if that it is not a kind of a K.E. and is a raincoat is not correct. sent14: if something does not lexicalize poisoning and is not a kind of a raincoat then it is not a dumps. sent15: the capo is a K.E. if that the cuckooflower is a dumps is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the accumulation is a stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning does not hold. sent17: if something does age Merrimack then it is a thyroprotein. sent18: if the Kazakhstani ages Merrimack the sodalist lexicalizes poisoning. sent19: the Kazakhstani does not age Merrimack.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cuckooflower dumps.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the capo is a K.E..; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the Kazakhstani is not a kind of a K.E. but it is a kind of a raincoat does not hold.; sent13 -> int3: if the fact that the Kazakhstani is not a K.E. but it is a raincoat does not hold the fact that it does not lexicalize poisoning is not false.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the fact that the accumulation is not a stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning does not hold.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the sodalist does age Merrimack.; sent17 -> int7: the sodalist is a kind of a thyroprotein if it ages Merrimack.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the sodalist is a kind of a thyroprotein.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the Kazakhstani does not age Merrimack.
sent8 -> int9: that the cuckooflower does age Merrimack but it is not a K.E. does not hold if it does not dump.; sent14 -> int10: the fact that the cuckooflower does not dump is not false if it does not lexicalize poisoning and it is not a raincoat.;
$hypothesis$ = that if the cuckooflower dumps the sodalist is a thyroprotein is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the capo is a K.E. the fact that the Kazakhstani is both not a K.E. and a raincoat is not true. sent2: if something is a kind of a stunt it is a K.E.. sent3: the fact that the accumulation is a stunt but it does not lexicalize poisoning is not true if the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning. sent4: that the accumulation is not a stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning is not correct if the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning. sent5: if that the accumulation does not stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning does not hold the sodalist does age Merrimack. sent6: the sodalist does lexicalize poisoning. sent7: the sodalist does age Merrimack if the fact that the accumulation is a stunt is right. sent8: if something is not a dumps the fact that it ages Merrimack and it is not a kind of a K.E. is not correct. sent9: something does not lexicalize poisoning if it is not a raincoat. sent10: if the Kazakhstani is not a raincoat it does not lexicalize poisoning. sent11: if the fact that the Kazakhstani does lexicalize poisoning hold it is a dumps. sent12: the fact that the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning and does not stunt does not hold if the accumulation does not stunt. sent13: something does not lexicalize poisoning if that it is not a kind of a K.E. and is a raincoat is not correct. sent14: if something does not lexicalize poisoning and is not a kind of a raincoat then it is not a dumps. sent15: the capo is a K.E. if that the cuckooflower is a dumps is not incorrect. sent16: the fact that the accumulation is a stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning does not hold. sent17: if something does age Merrimack then it is a thyroprotein. sent18: if the Kazakhstani ages Merrimack the sodalist lexicalizes poisoning. sent19: the Kazakhstani does not age Merrimack. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cuckooflower dumps.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the capo is a K.E..; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the Kazakhstani is not a kind of a K.E. but it is a kind of a raincoat does not hold.; sent13 -> int3: if the fact that the Kazakhstani is not a K.E. but it is a raincoat does not hold the fact that it does not lexicalize poisoning is not false.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the Kazakhstani does not lexicalize poisoning.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the fact that the accumulation is not a stunt and does not lexicalize poisoning does not hold.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the sodalist does age Merrimack.; sent17 -> int7: the sodalist is a kind of a thyroprotein if it ages Merrimack.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the sodalist is a kind of a thyroprotein.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__