the promontory is immanent.
sent1: something is fungicidal. sent2: the lifesaver is not amphoric. sent3: the egomaniac is a lithographer. sent4: that something is a viticulture is not false. sent5: the doctor is not fungicidal if there exists something such that it is both a viticulture and a respecter. sent6: if something is not amphoric then the egomaniac is a viticulture that is a lithographer. sent7: the egomaniac is a lithographer if there exists something such that it is not amphoric. sent8: if the doctor is a respecter the egomaniac is fungicidal. sent9: that either something is not a kind of a viticulture or it is not amphoric or both is not correct if it is not a lithographer. sent10: if something that is fungicidal is a respecter the egomaniac is not immanent. sent11: something is immanent if that it is not a viticulture or it is not amphoric or both does not hold. sent12: if something is not a kind of a respecter it is not fungicidal and it is not a lithographer. sent13: something is not a respecter if that it does will and it is a kind of a jonquil is not true. sent14: if something that is fungicidal is a kind of a viticulture the promontory is not immanent. sent15: something is amphoric and is a viticulture if it is not a lithographer. sent16: the doctor is a kind of a respecter.
sent2 -> int1: there are non-amphoric things.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the egomaniac is a kind of a viticulture and it is a kind of a lithographer.; int2 -> int3: the egomaniac is a viticulture.; sent8 & sent16 -> int4: the egomaniac is fungicidal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the egomaniac is fungicidal and it is a viticulture.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is fungicidal thing that is a viticulture.; int6 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
that the doctor is not non-amphoric is right.
sent15 -> int7: the doctor is amphoric and it is a viticulture if it is not a kind of a lithographer.;
$hypothesis$ = the promontory is immanent. ; $context$ = sent1: something is fungicidal. sent2: the lifesaver is not amphoric. sent3: the egomaniac is a lithographer. sent4: that something is a viticulture is not false. sent5: the doctor is not fungicidal if there exists something such that it is both a viticulture and a respecter. sent6: if something is not amphoric then the egomaniac is a viticulture that is a lithographer. sent7: the egomaniac is a lithographer if there exists something such that it is not amphoric. sent8: if the doctor is a respecter the egomaniac is fungicidal. sent9: that either something is not a kind of a viticulture or it is not amphoric or both is not correct if it is not a lithographer. sent10: if something that is fungicidal is a respecter the egomaniac is not immanent. sent11: something is immanent if that it is not a viticulture or it is not amphoric or both does not hold. sent12: if something is not a kind of a respecter it is not fungicidal and it is not a lithographer. sent13: something is not a respecter if that it does will and it is a kind of a jonquil is not true. sent14: if something that is fungicidal is a kind of a viticulture the promontory is not immanent. sent15: something is amphoric and is a viticulture if it is not a lithographer. sent16: the doctor is a kind of a respecter. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: there are non-amphoric things.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the egomaniac is a kind of a viticulture and it is a kind of a lithographer.; int2 -> int3: the egomaniac is a viticulture.; sent8 & sent16 -> int4: the egomaniac is fungicidal.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the egomaniac is fungicidal and it is a viticulture.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that it is fungicidal thing that is a viticulture.; int6 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__