the spitfire scouts magnetization.
sent1: the husband is astomatal. sent2: if the spitfire scouts magnetization that the husband is both not a waker and astomatal is not true. sent3: the husband is not a waker. sent4: if the encyclical is not a incurability it is non-monoclinic and is grammatical. sent5: if that something is not a kind of a Percy and it does not squinch keratoplasty does not hold it is not a incurability. sent6: the husband is not non-monoclinic if the encyclical is not non-monoclinic but it is grammatical. sent7: if the husband does not squinch functionalism and is monoclinic the spitfire scouts magnetization. sent8: the husband does not squinch functionalism but it is a kind of a peridotite. sent9: if something is a kind of a no-goal that it is not a Percy and does not squinch keratoplasty does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spitfire does scout magnetization.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the husband is not a kind of a waker but it is astomatal is not correct.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the husband is both not a waker and not non-astomatal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the spitfire scouts magnetization.
sent8 -> int4: the fact that the husband does not squinch functionalism hold.; sent5 -> int5: if the fact that the encyclical is not a Percy and does not squinch keratoplasty does not hold it is not a incurability.; sent9 -> int6: the fact that the encyclical is not a kind of a Percy and it does not squinch keratoplasty is wrong if it is a kind of a no-goal.;
$hypothesis$ = the spitfire scouts magnetization. ; $context$ = sent1: the husband is astomatal. sent2: if the spitfire scouts magnetization that the husband is both not a waker and astomatal is not true. sent3: the husband is not a waker. sent4: if the encyclical is not a incurability it is non-monoclinic and is grammatical. sent5: if that something is not a kind of a Percy and it does not squinch keratoplasty does not hold it is not a incurability. sent6: the husband is not non-monoclinic if the encyclical is not non-monoclinic but it is grammatical. sent7: if the husband does not squinch functionalism and is monoclinic the spitfire scouts magnetization. sent8: the husband does not squinch functionalism but it is a kind of a peridotite. sent9: if something is a kind of a no-goal that it is not a Percy and does not squinch keratoplasty does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spitfire does scout magnetization.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the husband is not a kind of a waker but it is astomatal is not correct.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the husband is both not a waker and not non-astomatal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__