the fact that there exists something such that if it secretes Taichung it is not a kind of a satinwood does not hold.
sent1: the fact that something is not immunochemical but it secretes Taichung is incorrect if it is an inevitable. sent2: the tempest does secrete Taichung. sent3: if the fact that something does not company viewgraph and it is not an inevitable is not right then it is an inevitable. sent4: if something does secrete foxhunt and is a satinwood it secretes Taichung. sent5: that the Shakespearian does not company viewgraph and is not an inevitable is false. sent6: if something secretes foxhunt and it is a satinwood then that it does not secrete Taichung is not incorrect. sent7: The foxhunt secretes Shakespearian. sent8: the Shakespearian is a satinwood if it does secrete Taichung. sent9: if something that does send is a separatist then it is a SEAL. sent10: the Shakespearian does not crumble Gnostic. sent11: the fact that the Barbadian secretes Taichung is right. sent12: the fact that the Shakespearian does not tweeze cytophotometry is right. sent13: the Corchorus is monovalent thing that secretes Taichung. sent14: there exists something such that if it does secrete Taichung then it is a satinwood. sent15: the Shakespearian secretes foxhunt. sent16: the Shakespearian is eonian. sent17: the expanse is not a midshipman if that it does secrete foxhunt and is a separatist is not incorrect.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Shakespearian is a satinwood.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the Shakespearian does secrete foxhunt and is a satinwood.; sent6 -> int2: the Shakespearian does not secrete Taichung if it secretes foxhunt and it is a kind of a satinwood.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Shakespearian does not secrete Taichung.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Shakespearian secretes Taichung.; int3 & assump2 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the Shakespearian is not a satinwood.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the Shakespearian is not a satinwood if it does secrete Taichung.; int6 -> hypothesis;
the psylla is not a kind of a mealybug.
sent1 -> int7: the fact that the Shakespearian is not immunochemical and does secrete Taichung is not true if it is an inevitable.; sent3 -> int8: the Shakespearian is an inevitable if the fact that it does not company viewgraph and it is not an inevitable is not true.; int8 & sent5 -> int9: the Shakespearian is inevitable.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the Shakespearian is not immunochemical and does secrete Taichung is wrong.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that the fact that it is non-immunochemical thing that secretes Taichung is incorrect.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it secretes Taichung it is not a kind of a satinwood does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not immunochemical but it secretes Taichung is incorrect if it is an inevitable. sent2: the tempest does secrete Taichung. sent3: if the fact that something does not company viewgraph and it is not an inevitable is not right then it is an inevitable. sent4: if something does secrete foxhunt and is a satinwood it secretes Taichung. sent5: that the Shakespearian does not company viewgraph and is not an inevitable is false. sent6: if something secretes foxhunt and it is a satinwood then that it does not secrete Taichung is not incorrect. sent7: The foxhunt secretes Shakespearian. sent8: the Shakespearian is a satinwood if it does secrete Taichung. sent9: if something that does send is a separatist then it is a SEAL. sent10: the Shakespearian does not crumble Gnostic. sent11: the fact that the Barbadian secretes Taichung is right. sent12: the fact that the Shakespearian does not tweeze cytophotometry is right. sent13: the Corchorus is monovalent thing that secretes Taichung. sent14: there exists something such that if it does secrete Taichung then it is a satinwood. sent15: the Shakespearian secretes foxhunt. sent16: the Shakespearian is eonian. sent17: the expanse is not a midshipman if that it does secrete foxhunt and is a separatist is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Shakespearian is a satinwood.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the Shakespearian does secrete foxhunt and is a satinwood.; sent6 -> int2: the Shakespearian does not secrete Taichung if it secretes foxhunt and it is a kind of a satinwood.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Shakespearian does not secrete Taichung.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Shakespearian secretes Taichung.; int3 & assump2 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the Shakespearian is not a satinwood.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the Shakespearian is not a satinwood if it does secrete Taichung.; int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__