the ward does unbend ophthalmoscope.
sent1: the narcissus is botanic and is a kind of an interim. sent2: if the naturalist is a Platonism then the ward is not Leonardesque or does not unbend ophthalmoscope or both. sent3: there exists something such that it is botanic. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a test. sent5: the keyhole is a manifesto if it is disjunct. sent6: a non-Leonardesque thing tests and/or does unbend difflugia. sent7: that if the augite does unbend weave then the naturalist is muciferous is not wrong. sent8: if the keyhole is not disjunct then the lancer is botanic and it is Leonardesque. sent9: that the lancer is not a manifesto but it is disjunct is not right if there is something such that it is botanic. sent10: the augite does not tease lancer. sent11: the fact that something is non-stearic thing that is not field-crop does not hold if it is muciferous. sent12: if the fact that the augite is a recapitulation hold the naturalist is muciferous. sent13: if the fact that the naturalist is not stearic and is not field-crop is not true then it is a kind of a Platonism. sent14: the lancer is not a test. sent15: if the augite does not tease lancer it does unbend weave or it is a kind of a recapitulation or both. sent16: if the keyhole is not a kind of a Platonism then that it is not a kind of a manifesto is not incorrect. sent17: if something is not Leonardesque and/or it does not unbend ophthalmoscope the keyhole is not Leonardesque. sent18: if that something is not a manifesto but disjunct is not true then the fact that it is a ready is not false. sent19: if something is botanic but not a test then the ward does not unbend ophthalmoscope. sent20: the fact that the keyhole is not a Platonism is right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the keyhole is disjunct.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the keyhole is a kind of a manifesto.; sent16 & sent20 -> int2: the keyhole is not a manifesto.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the keyhole is not disjunct is not wrong.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the lancer is botanic and is Leonardesque.; int5 -> int6: the lancer is botanic.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the lancer is both botanic and not a test.; int7 -> int8: something is botanic and does not test.; int8 & sent19 -> hypothesis;
the lancer is ready and unbends difflugia.
sent18 -> int9: if that the lancer is not a kind of a manifesto but it is not non-disjunct is wrong then it is ready.; sent1 -> int10: the narcissus is botanic.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is botanic.; int11 & sent9 -> int12: that that the lancer is not a manifesto and is disjunct hold is incorrect.; int9 & int12 -> int13: the lancer is a ready.; sent6 -> int14: the keyhole is a kind of a test and/or it unbends difflugia if it is not Leonardesque.; sent11 -> int15: that the naturalist is both not stearic and not field-crop is not right if it is muciferous.; sent15 & sent10 -> int16: the augite does unbend weave and/or it is a kind of a recapitulation.; int16 & sent7 & sent12 -> int17: the naturalist is muciferous.; int15 & int17 -> int18: that the naturalist is both non-stearic and not field-crop is wrong.; sent13 & int18 -> int19: the naturalist is a kind of a Platonism.; sent2 & int19 -> int20: the ward is not Leonardesque and/or does not unbend ophthalmoscope.; int20 -> int21: something either is not Leonardesque or does not unbend ophthalmoscope or both.; int21 & sent17 -> int22: the keyhole is not Leonardesque.; int14 & int22 -> int23: the keyhole is a test and/or it unbends difflugia.;
$hypothesis$ = the ward does unbend ophthalmoscope. ; $context$ = sent1: the narcissus is botanic and is a kind of an interim. sent2: if the naturalist is a Platonism then the ward is not Leonardesque or does not unbend ophthalmoscope or both. sent3: there exists something such that it is botanic. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a test. sent5: the keyhole is a manifesto if it is disjunct. sent6: a non-Leonardesque thing tests and/or does unbend difflugia. sent7: that if the augite does unbend weave then the naturalist is muciferous is not wrong. sent8: if the keyhole is not disjunct then the lancer is botanic and it is Leonardesque. sent9: that the lancer is not a manifesto but it is disjunct is not right if there is something such that it is botanic. sent10: the augite does not tease lancer. sent11: the fact that something is non-stearic thing that is not field-crop does not hold if it is muciferous. sent12: if the fact that the augite is a recapitulation hold the naturalist is muciferous. sent13: if the fact that the naturalist is not stearic and is not field-crop is not true then it is a kind of a Platonism. sent14: the lancer is not a test. sent15: if the augite does not tease lancer it does unbend weave or it is a kind of a recapitulation or both. sent16: if the keyhole is not a kind of a Platonism then that it is not a kind of a manifesto is not incorrect. sent17: if something is not Leonardesque and/or it does not unbend ophthalmoscope the keyhole is not Leonardesque. sent18: if that something is not a manifesto but disjunct is not true then the fact that it is a ready is not false. sent19: if something is botanic but not a test then the ward does not unbend ophthalmoscope. sent20: the fact that the keyhole is not a Platonism is right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the keyhole is disjunct.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the keyhole is a kind of a manifesto.; sent16 & sent20 -> int2: the keyhole is not a manifesto.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the keyhole is not disjunct is not wrong.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the lancer is botanic and is Leonardesque.; int5 -> int6: the lancer is botanic.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: the lancer is both botanic and not a test.; int7 -> int8: something is botanic and does not test.; int8 & sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__