that either the pogonophoran is residuary or it disapproves liberal or both is incorrect.
sent1: the fact that the pogonophoran is a colophon does not hold. sent2: the ecrevisse is not a rooftop if the garmentmaker does undercut calculator and is not a SGML. sent3: the fact that either the pogonophoran does undercut calculator or it does induce garmentmaker or both does not hold if the ecrevisse does not disapprove liberal. sent4: if that the pogonophoran does not induce garmentmaker and it does not disapprove liberal is not correct the ecrevisse does not undercut calculator. sent5: the fact that the hogback is not residuary is true. sent6: the pogonophoran is not a kind of a SGML if that that the ecrevisse does not induce garmentmaker and is a kind of a SGML is not right is not incorrect. sent7: the hogback does not induce garmentmaker if the garmentmaker is a SGML. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both Belgian and not a cesspool is incorrect then the ecrevisse does not undercut calculator. sent9: there is something such that it is not a SGML. sent10: that the pogonophoran either is residuary or does disapprove liberal or both is false if the hogback does not induce garmentmaker. sent11: the ecrevisse is not a SGML if there is something such that it undercuts calculator. sent12: if there is something such that it does not undercut calculator then that the garmentmaker is not linguistic and it is not a SGML does not hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is Belgian thing that is not a cesspool is not correct. sent14: that the pogonophoran does undercut Wu and/or is a kind of a nominal is not true. sent15: the hogback does not induce garmentmaker if the fact that the garmentmaker is not linguistic and it is not a kind of a SGML does not hold. sent16: if that the hogback does not disapprove liberal and it does not induce garmentmaker is not correct then that the pogonophoran is not linguistic hold.
sent13 & sent8 -> int1: the ecrevisse does not undercut calculator.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it does not undercut calculator.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the fact that the garmentmaker is not linguistic and not a SGML is wrong.; sent15 & int3 -> int4: that the hogback does not induce garmentmaker is correct.; sent10 & int4 -> hypothesis;
the pogonophoran is residuary and/or it does disapprove liberal.
$hypothesis$ = that either the pogonophoran is residuary or it disapproves liberal or both is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the pogonophoran is a colophon does not hold. sent2: the ecrevisse is not a rooftop if the garmentmaker does undercut calculator and is not a SGML. sent3: the fact that either the pogonophoran does undercut calculator or it does induce garmentmaker or both does not hold if the ecrevisse does not disapprove liberal. sent4: if that the pogonophoran does not induce garmentmaker and it does not disapprove liberal is not correct the ecrevisse does not undercut calculator. sent5: the fact that the hogback is not residuary is true. sent6: the pogonophoran is not a kind of a SGML if that that the ecrevisse does not induce garmentmaker and is a kind of a SGML is not right is not incorrect. sent7: the hogback does not induce garmentmaker if the garmentmaker is a SGML. sent8: if there exists something such that the fact that it is both Belgian and not a cesspool is incorrect then the ecrevisse does not undercut calculator. sent9: there is something such that it is not a SGML. sent10: that the pogonophoran either is residuary or does disapprove liberal or both is false if the hogback does not induce garmentmaker. sent11: the ecrevisse is not a SGML if there is something such that it undercuts calculator. sent12: if there is something such that it does not undercut calculator then that the garmentmaker is not linguistic and it is not a SGML does not hold. sent13: there is something such that the fact that it is Belgian thing that is not a cesspool is not correct. sent14: that the pogonophoran does undercut Wu and/or is a kind of a nominal is not true. sent15: the hogback does not induce garmentmaker if the fact that the garmentmaker is not linguistic and it is not a kind of a SGML does not hold. sent16: if that the hogback does not disapprove liberal and it does not induce garmentmaker is not correct then that the pogonophoran is not linguistic hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 & sent8 -> int1: the ecrevisse does not undercut calculator.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it does not undercut calculator.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: the fact that the garmentmaker is not linguistic and not a SGML is wrong.; sent15 & int3 -> int4: that the hogback does not induce garmentmaker is correct.; sent10 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__