the softwood does not troop noun.
sent1: that the softwood is a kind of a limiter that is a kind of an artery is not correct if the Whig is not heterodyne. sent2: if there exists something such that it is either non-appellate or not a demythologization or both the sporophyll is not non-appellate. sent3: that the softwood does troop noun is true if there exists something such that that it is appellate and/or does heterodyne is not true. sent4: the megasporophyll is non-monomorphemic. sent5: something does not troop noun if the fact that it is a limiter and an artery is false. sent6: the copycat is not a kind of a limiter if the Whig is not heterodyne and it is not a limiter. sent7: the Whig is not a kind of a limiter and it is not a kind of an artery. sent8: the Whig is not a limiter. sent9: the Kassite is both inexpressible and charitable if the megasporophyll is not monomorphemic. sent10: something is not heterodyne. sent11: if something is not a limiter then it does not troop noun. sent12: there exists something such that it is non-appellate. sent13: there is something such that it is an artery. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Coosa. sent15: the bioluminescence does not mask. sent16: that the sporophyll is appellate and/or does heterodyne is incorrect if something is not a kind of an artery. sent17: either something is not appellate or it is not a demythologization or both if the fact that it is inexpressible is not wrong. sent18: the sporophyll is not appellate. sent19: if something is not an artery then the sporophyll is not appellate. sent20: something is appellate and/or it is not non-heterodyne.
sent7 -> int1: the Whig is not an artery.; int1 -> int2: something is not a kind of an artery.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: that either the sporophyll is appellate or it does heterodyne or both is not right.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it is either not non-appellate or not non-heterodyne or both is incorrect.; int4 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the softwood does not troop noun.
sent5 -> int5: if that the softwood is a limiter and it is an artery is incorrect then it does not troop noun.; sent17 -> int6: if the Kassite is inexpressible then either it is not appellate or it is not a demythologization or both.; sent9 & sent4 -> int7: that the Kassite is inexpressible and not uncharitable is true.; int7 -> int8: the Kassite is inexpressible.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the Kassite is not appellate and/or it is not a kind of a demythologization.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it either is not appellate or is not a demythologization or both.; int10 & sent2 -> int11: the sporophyll is not appellate.; int11 -> int12: something is not appellate.;
$hypothesis$ = the softwood does not troop noun. ; $context$ = sent1: that the softwood is a kind of a limiter that is a kind of an artery is not correct if the Whig is not heterodyne. sent2: if there exists something such that it is either non-appellate or not a demythologization or both the sporophyll is not non-appellate. sent3: that the softwood does troop noun is true if there exists something such that that it is appellate and/or does heterodyne is not true. sent4: the megasporophyll is non-monomorphemic. sent5: something does not troop noun if the fact that it is a limiter and an artery is false. sent6: the copycat is not a kind of a limiter if the Whig is not heterodyne and it is not a limiter. sent7: the Whig is not a kind of a limiter and it is not a kind of an artery. sent8: the Whig is not a limiter. sent9: the Kassite is both inexpressible and charitable if the megasporophyll is not monomorphemic. sent10: something is not heterodyne. sent11: if something is not a limiter then it does not troop noun. sent12: there exists something such that it is non-appellate. sent13: there is something such that it is an artery. sent14: there exists something such that it is a Coosa. sent15: the bioluminescence does not mask. sent16: that the sporophyll is appellate and/or does heterodyne is incorrect if something is not a kind of an artery. sent17: either something is not appellate or it is not a demythologization or both if the fact that it is inexpressible is not wrong. sent18: the sporophyll is not appellate. sent19: if something is not an artery then the sporophyll is not appellate. sent20: something is appellate and/or it is not non-heterodyne. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: the Whig is not an artery.; int1 -> int2: something is not a kind of an artery.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: that either the sporophyll is appellate or it does heterodyne or both is not right.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it is either not non-appellate or not non-heterodyne or both is incorrect.; int4 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__