the streptococcus is not a horticulturist.
sent1: the tartlet does acquaint antiquary. sent2: something is not a backhanded if that it is a Pelham and primes is not true. sent3: that something is not episcopal is right. sent4: if the greeter is not a Jude the fact that it is sarcolemmic and does not backhand does not hold. sent5: the fact that the greeter is not backhanded and is sarcolemmic is wrong if there exists something such that it is not a Jude. sent6: if something is not a kind of a priming that it is episcopal and is not a Pelham is false. sent7: the fact that the greeter is a Jude and a butterbean is not correct if something is not a Pelham. sent8: if that the greeter is not non-episcopal and is not a kind of a Pelham is incorrect the streptococcus is not a horticulturist. sent9: the tartlet is not a heart. sent10: that the streptococcus is not sarcolemmic is correct. sent11: that the greeter does not acquaint antiquary but it is a kind of a Jude does not hold if it is not a butterbean. sent12: if there is something such that it is not episcopal then that the greeter is a Pelham and it primes is not right. sent13: if that something is not a Pelham is correct then it is not backhanded. sent14: the tartlet is a butterbean and acquaints antiquary. sent15: if the tartlet is a butterbean and it does acquaint antiquary then it is not a kind of a Jude. sent16: there is something such that it is not sarcolemmic. sent17: the streptococcus is a horticulturist if the greeter is not sarcolemmic. sent18: if the greeter is not a Pelham then it is not backhanded. sent19: if that the streptococcus is a kind of a horticulturist and it acquaints antiquary is not right then it is non-sarcolemmic. sent20: something is a Jude. sent21: there exists something such that it is episcopal.
sent3 & sent12 -> int1: that the greeter is a Pelham and it is a kind of a priming is not true.; sent2 -> int2: if that the greeter is a kind of a Pelham that primes is incorrect it is not a backhanded.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the greeter is not a backhanded.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the greeter is sarcolemmic.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the greeter is not backhanded but it is sarcolemmic.; sent15 & sent14 -> int5: the tartlet is not a Jude.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Jude.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the fact that the greeter is both not backhanded and sarcolemmic does not hold.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the greeter is not sarcolemmic.; int9 & sent17 -> hypothesis;
the streptococcus is not a horticulturist.
sent6 -> int10: that the greeter is episcopal but it is not a Pelham is not true if the fact that it does not prime hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the streptococcus is not a horticulturist. ; $context$ = sent1: the tartlet does acquaint antiquary. sent2: something is not a backhanded if that it is a Pelham and primes is not true. sent3: that something is not episcopal is right. sent4: if the greeter is not a Jude the fact that it is sarcolemmic and does not backhand does not hold. sent5: the fact that the greeter is not backhanded and is sarcolemmic is wrong if there exists something such that it is not a Jude. sent6: if something is not a kind of a priming that it is episcopal and is not a Pelham is false. sent7: the fact that the greeter is a Jude and a butterbean is not correct if something is not a Pelham. sent8: if that the greeter is not non-episcopal and is not a kind of a Pelham is incorrect the streptococcus is not a horticulturist. sent9: the tartlet is not a heart. sent10: that the streptococcus is not sarcolemmic is correct. sent11: that the greeter does not acquaint antiquary but it is a kind of a Jude does not hold if it is not a butterbean. sent12: if there is something such that it is not episcopal then that the greeter is a Pelham and it primes is not right. sent13: if that something is not a Pelham is correct then it is not backhanded. sent14: the tartlet is a butterbean and acquaints antiquary. sent15: if the tartlet is a butterbean and it does acquaint antiquary then it is not a kind of a Jude. sent16: there is something such that it is not sarcolemmic. sent17: the streptococcus is a horticulturist if the greeter is not sarcolemmic. sent18: if the greeter is not a Pelham then it is not backhanded. sent19: if that the streptococcus is a kind of a horticulturist and it acquaints antiquary is not right then it is non-sarcolemmic. sent20: something is a Jude. sent21: there exists something such that it is episcopal. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent12 -> int1: that the greeter is a Pelham and it is a kind of a priming is not true.; sent2 -> int2: if that the greeter is a kind of a Pelham that primes is incorrect it is not a backhanded.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the greeter is not a backhanded.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the greeter is sarcolemmic.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the greeter is not backhanded but it is sarcolemmic.; sent15 & sent14 -> int5: the tartlet is not a Jude.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Jude.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the fact that the greeter is both not backhanded and sarcolemmic does not hold.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the greeter is not sarcolemmic.; int9 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__