the lane is not a Bruchidae.
sent1: that the gum does ammoniate stiffener but it does not clank empiricism is not correct. sent2: if something does not ammoniate Sporobolus that it does not clank empiricism and is a toothpowder is false. sent3: there exists something such that that it clanks empiricism and is not a Bosch is wrong. sent4: the gum is a Bruchidae. sent5: the lane is a toothpowder if there exists something such that that it does clank empiricism and it is not a kind of a Bruchidae does not hold. sent6: the lane is a Bruchidae if the metalware ammoniates stiffener but it is not a Bosch. sent7: the metalware is a toothpowder. sent8: the clinician is not an adjective. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Bosch then the metalware ammoniates priest. sent10: the landside ammoniates priest and it is isometrics. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of an adjective the fact that the alkapton is centroidal and is not a kind of a legality does not hold. sent12: the gum does clank empiricism. sent13: the fact that the metalware does ammoniate stiffener and it is a kind of a Bosch is not true. sent14: there exists something such that it is a toothpowder that does not ammoniate priest. sent15: the gum ammoniates priest if something is a Bosch. sent16: if there exists something such that that it does ammoniate stiffener and it is not a Bosch is not right the fact that the gum ammoniates priest is not incorrect. sent17: the gum does not clank empiricism if that the pullover does not clank empiricism but it is a kind of a toothpowder is not right. sent18: if the gum clanks empiricism and is not a kind of a toothpowder then it does not ammoniate priest. sent19: the gum clanks empiricism and is not a toothpowder. sent20: if that the gum does not clank empiricism is true then the fact that the lane ammoniates priest and is a kind of a Bruchidae does not hold. sent21: if the fact that something is centroidal but it is not a kind of a legality is incorrect it is not centroidal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the metalware ammoniates stiffener but it is not a Bosch is wrong.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that that it ammoniates stiffener and it is not a Bosch is wrong.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the gum ammoniates priest.; sent18 & sent19 -> int3: the gum does not ammoniate priest.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the metalware does ammoniate stiffener but it is not a kind of a Bosch.; int5 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
that the lane is not a Bruchidae is true.
sent2 -> int6: the fact that the pullover does not clank empiricism but it is a kind of a toothpowder is incorrect if it does not ammoniate Sporobolus.; sent21 -> int7: the alkapton is not centroidal if that it is centroidal and it is not a legality does not hold.; sent8 -> int8: there are non-adjective things.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: that the alkapton is centroidal but it is not a legality is not true.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the alkapton is not centroidal.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is not centroidal.;
$hypothesis$ = the lane is not a Bruchidae. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gum does ammoniate stiffener but it does not clank empiricism is not correct. sent2: if something does not ammoniate Sporobolus that it does not clank empiricism and is a toothpowder is false. sent3: there exists something such that that it clanks empiricism and is not a Bosch is wrong. sent4: the gum is a Bruchidae. sent5: the lane is a toothpowder if there exists something such that that it does clank empiricism and it is not a kind of a Bruchidae does not hold. sent6: the lane is a Bruchidae if the metalware ammoniates stiffener but it is not a Bosch. sent7: the metalware is a toothpowder. sent8: the clinician is not an adjective. sent9: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Bosch then the metalware ammoniates priest. sent10: the landside ammoniates priest and it is isometrics. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of an adjective the fact that the alkapton is centroidal and is not a kind of a legality does not hold. sent12: the gum does clank empiricism. sent13: the fact that the metalware does ammoniate stiffener and it is a kind of a Bosch is not true. sent14: there exists something such that it is a toothpowder that does not ammoniate priest. sent15: the gum ammoniates priest if something is a Bosch. sent16: if there exists something such that that it does ammoniate stiffener and it is not a Bosch is not right the fact that the gum ammoniates priest is not incorrect. sent17: the gum does not clank empiricism if that the pullover does not clank empiricism but it is a kind of a toothpowder is not right. sent18: if the gum clanks empiricism and is not a kind of a toothpowder then it does not ammoniate priest. sent19: the gum clanks empiricism and is not a toothpowder. sent20: if that the gum does not clank empiricism is true then the fact that the lane ammoniates priest and is a kind of a Bruchidae does not hold. sent21: if the fact that something is centroidal but it is not a kind of a legality is incorrect it is not centroidal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the metalware ammoniates stiffener but it is not a Bosch is wrong.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that that it ammoniates stiffener and it is not a Bosch is wrong.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the gum ammoniates priest.; sent18 & sent19 -> int3: the gum does not ammoniate priest.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the metalware does ammoniate stiffener but it is not a kind of a Bosch.; int5 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__