that the barrow is not a bovine is right.
sent1: the pintle is not a checkerboard if there exists something such that that it is a checkerboard and it is a lockage is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a checkerboard that is a lockage is wrong. sent3: if the billy is not a ringlet then the fact that the kale is a jab and it helps is incorrect. sent4: the classicist does acquaint Sorbonne. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is both not an optimist and not topless is wrong the billy is not a ringlet. sent6: everything acquaints Sorbonne and acquaints documentation. sent7: the barrow is a bovine if the fact that the kale is both not a ringlet and not unpunctual is not true. sent8: that the pintle is not an optimist and it is not topless is not correct if it is not a checkerboard. sent9: the floe is anamorphic. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a bovine. sent11: if there is something such that it does not acquaint documentation then the deflagration patrols Cercidiphyllum and does acquaint Sorbonne. sent12: if the classicist does acquaint documentation the cockpit acquaint documentation. sent13: if something does not acquaint documentation and acquaints Sorbonne then it is not bovine. sent14: the barrow does not patrol Cercidiphyllum if the fact that the fact that the cockpit is not unpunctual and patrol Cercidiphyllum is true is not correct. sent15: the classicist is not a jab and revises ground. sent16: something is a kind of an optimist and it revises Hussite. sent17: that the kale is not a kind of a ringlet and is not unpunctual is wrong if there is something such that it is a jab. sent18: the kale is not a ringlet and it is not bovine. sent19: something is a ringlet. sent20: there is something such that it is unpunctual. sent21: if something is both not a ringlet and not bovine it is not a jab. sent22: if something does not patrol Cercidiphyllum and does acquaint documentation then the floe jabs. sent23: if the classicist does acquaint documentation then the cockpit does not patrol Cercidiphyllum but it does acquaint documentation. sent24: the floe is unpunctual.
sent6 -> int1: the classicist acquaints Sorbonne and acquaints documentation.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the classicist does acquaint documentation hold.; int2 & sent23 -> int3: the cockpit does not patrol Cercidiphyllum but it does acquaint documentation.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it does not patrol Cercidiphyllum and does acquaint documentation.; int4 & sent22 -> int5: the floe is a kind of a jab.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is a jab.; int6 & sent17 -> int7: that the kale is not a ringlet and it is not unpunctual is not right.; int7 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the deflagration patrols Cercidiphyllum.
sent21 -> int8: if the kale is not a ringlet and it is not a bovine that it is not a jab hold.; int8 & sent18 -> int9: the kale does not jab.;
$hypothesis$ = that the barrow is not a bovine is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the pintle is not a checkerboard if there exists something such that that it is a checkerboard and it is a lockage is incorrect. sent2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a checkerboard that is a lockage is wrong. sent3: if the billy is not a ringlet then the fact that the kale is a jab and it helps is incorrect. sent4: the classicist does acquaint Sorbonne. sent5: if there is something such that the fact that it is both not an optimist and not topless is wrong the billy is not a ringlet. sent6: everything acquaints Sorbonne and acquaints documentation. sent7: the barrow is a bovine if the fact that the kale is both not a ringlet and not unpunctual is not true. sent8: that the pintle is not an optimist and it is not topless is not correct if it is not a checkerboard. sent9: the floe is anamorphic. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a bovine. sent11: if there is something such that it does not acquaint documentation then the deflagration patrols Cercidiphyllum and does acquaint Sorbonne. sent12: if the classicist does acquaint documentation the cockpit acquaint documentation. sent13: if something does not acquaint documentation and acquaints Sorbonne then it is not bovine. sent14: the barrow does not patrol Cercidiphyllum if the fact that the fact that the cockpit is not unpunctual and patrol Cercidiphyllum is true is not correct. sent15: the classicist is not a jab and revises ground. sent16: something is a kind of an optimist and it revises Hussite. sent17: that the kale is not a kind of a ringlet and is not unpunctual is wrong if there is something such that it is a jab. sent18: the kale is not a ringlet and it is not bovine. sent19: something is a ringlet. sent20: there is something such that it is unpunctual. sent21: if something is both not a ringlet and not bovine it is not a jab. sent22: if something does not patrol Cercidiphyllum and does acquaint documentation then the floe jabs. sent23: if the classicist does acquaint documentation then the cockpit does not patrol Cercidiphyllum but it does acquaint documentation. sent24: the floe is unpunctual. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the classicist acquaints Sorbonne and acquaints documentation.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the classicist does acquaint documentation hold.; int2 & sent23 -> int3: the cockpit does not patrol Cercidiphyllum but it does acquaint documentation.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that it does not patrol Cercidiphyllum and does acquaint documentation.; int4 & sent22 -> int5: the floe is a kind of a jab.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is a jab.; int6 & sent17 -> int7: that the kale is not a ringlet and it is not unpunctual is not right.; int7 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__