the fact that the wally does rewrite vitalism if the fabulist does drape FBI is wrong.
sent1: the fabulist is a kind of a Parmesan. sent2: that something is not unlivable and it is not a batfish is wrong if it is not a thought-image. sent3: the wally does rewrite vitalism if it is a batfish. sent4: that the wally is livable but it is a kind of a batfish is not correct if it is not a thought-image. sent5: that if the fabulist does not rewrite vitalism then the fact that the fabulist is not a thought-image and is not a Parmesan does not hold is not incorrect. sent6: if the wally does rewrite vitalism and it does drape FBI then the fabulist is not unlivable. sent7: the wally is a kind of a batfish if the fabulist is a thought-image. sent8: the fact that something is not unlivable but it is a batfish is not right if it is not a thought-image. sent9: the fact that the fabulist is not a Parmesan and it does not rewrite vitalism is not true. sent10: if the fact that something is not a thought-image and it is not unlivable does not hold then it does drape FBI. sent11: the wally is not spermous. sent12: if the fact that something is livable and it is not a batfish is not correct then it does rewrite vitalism. sent13: the wally does drape FBI. sent14: if the fabulist does drape FBI and it is a Parmesan the wally is not a thought-image. sent15: if the wally does drape FBI then the fact that the fabulist does rewrite vitalism is true. sent16: the fact that the wally does not drape FBI and is not a thought-image is not true if it is not unlivable. sent17: the wally is a cush-cush. sent18: the fact that something is not a batfish and it is not unlivable does not hold if it is not a Parmesan. sent19: something does rewrite vitalism if that it is a batfish is true. sent20: that the wally is not unlivable but a batfish is not true. sent21: the wally drapes FBI if the fabulist is a thought-image. sent22: the wally is inexpressible.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fabulist does drape FBI.; assump1 & sent1 -> int1: the fabulist does drape FBI and it is a Parmesan.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the wally is not a thought-image.; sent2 -> int3: if the wally is not a thought-image the fact that it is not unlivable and it is not a batfish is incorrect.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the wally is non-unlivable thing that is not a batfish is not correct.; sent12 -> int5: if that the wally is not unlivable and it is not a batfish is wrong it does rewrite vitalism.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the wally rewrites vitalism is not incorrect.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the wally does rewrite vitalism if the fabulist does drape FBI is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fabulist is a kind of a Parmesan. sent2: that something is not unlivable and it is not a batfish is wrong if it is not a thought-image. sent3: the wally does rewrite vitalism if it is a batfish. sent4: that the wally is livable but it is a kind of a batfish is not correct if it is not a thought-image. sent5: that if the fabulist does not rewrite vitalism then the fact that the fabulist is not a thought-image and is not a Parmesan does not hold is not incorrect. sent6: if the wally does rewrite vitalism and it does drape FBI then the fabulist is not unlivable. sent7: the wally is a kind of a batfish if the fabulist is a thought-image. sent8: the fact that something is not unlivable but it is a batfish is not right if it is not a thought-image. sent9: the fact that the fabulist is not a Parmesan and it does not rewrite vitalism is not true. sent10: if the fact that something is not a thought-image and it is not unlivable does not hold then it does drape FBI. sent11: the wally is not spermous. sent12: if the fact that something is livable and it is not a batfish is not correct then it does rewrite vitalism. sent13: the wally does drape FBI. sent14: if the fabulist does drape FBI and it is a Parmesan the wally is not a thought-image. sent15: if the wally does drape FBI then the fact that the fabulist does rewrite vitalism is true. sent16: the fact that the wally does not drape FBI and is not a thought-image is not true if it is not unlivable. sent17: the wally is a cush-cush. sent18: the fact that something is not a batfish and it is not unlivable does not hold if it is not a Parmesan. sent19: something does rewrite vitalism if that it is a batfish is true. sent20: that the wally is not unlivable but a batfish is not true. sent21: the wally drapes FBI if the fabulist is a thought-image. sent22: the wally is inexpressible. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fabulist does drape FBI.; assump1 & sent1 -> int1: the fabulist does drape FBI and it is a Parmesan.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the wally is not a thought-image.; sent2 -> int3: if the wally is not a thought-image the fact that it is not unlivable and it is not a batfish is incorrect.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the wally is non-unlivable thing that is not a batfish is not correct.; sent12 -> int5: if that the wally is not unlivable and it is not a batfish is wrong it does rewrite vitalism.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the wally rewrites vitalism is not incorrect.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__