that the bobbin is a kind of a declension if the elephant-tusk is acervate is not right.
sent1: if there is something such that it is rejective that the bobbin is a declension is correct. sent2: the suricate is not rejective. sent3: something is both not rejective and not acervate. sent4: the elephant-tusk is not acervate if the suricate is both rejective and not discernible. sent5: if the suricate is not a kind of a rentier it logs spit and/or it is a Saone. sent6: the elephant-tusk is a kind of a jument. sent7: if that there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a declension and it is not rejective is false hold the bobbin is discernible. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it is not acervate and it is rejective is wrong. sent9: the bobbin is discernible if there is something such that that it is not rejective and it is not a declension is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-rejective thing that is discernible is incorrect. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-rejective but not discernible does not hold then the bobbin is a kind of a declension. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is frozen and it does not log education is not true. sent13: if something that does log guppy is polychromatic then it is not acervate. sent14: the bobbin is hypovolemic. sent15: the elephant-tusk is not acervate if the suricate is both not rejective and not discernible. sent16: the bobbin is not discernible. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of non-rejective thing that is not discernible. sent18: the bobbin is not rejective. sent19: if there is something such that that it is a declension is not incorrect then the elephant-tusk is acervate. sent20: there exists something such that that that it is rejective thing that is not discernible is not false does not hold. sent21: the elephant-tusk does waste hornbill if the suricate does not waste hornbill but it is a declension. sent22: the suricate does log guppy and is a kind of a Honduran.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the elephant-tusk is acervate.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the suricate is not rejective and it is not discernible.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the elephant-tusk is not acervate.; assump2 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the suricate is non-rejective thing that is not discernible is not correct.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that the fact that it is not rejective and it is not discernible is wrong.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the bobbin is a declension.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the elephant-tusk does waste hornbill.
sent13 -> int6: the suricate is not acervate if it does log guppy and it is not non-polychromatic.; sent22 -> int7: the suricate logs guppy.;
$hypothesis$ = that the bobbin is a kind of a declension if the elephant-tusk is acervate is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it is rejective that the bobbin is a declension is correct. sent2: the suricate is not rejective. sent3: something is both not rejective and not acervate. sent4: the elephant-tusk is not acervate if the suricate is both rejective and not discernible. sent5: if the suricate is not a kind of a rentier it logs spit and/or it is a Saone. sent6: the elephant-tusk is a kind of a jument. sent7: if that there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a declension and it is not rejective is false hold the bobbin is discernible. sent8: there is something such that the fact that it is not acervate and it is rejective is wrong. sent9: the bobbin is discernible if there is something such that that it is not rejective and it is not a declension is incorrect. sent10: there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-rejective thing that is discernible is incorrect. sent11: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-rejective but not discernible does not hold then the bobbin is a kind of a declension. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is frozen and it does not log education is not true. sent13: if something that does log guppy is polychromatic then it is not acervate. sent14: the bobbin is hypovolemic. sent15: the elephant-tusk is not acervate if the suricate is both not rejective and not discernible. sent16: the bobbin is not discernible. sent17: there exists something such that it is a kind of non-rejective thing that is not discernible. sent18: the bobbin is not rejective. sent19: if there is something such that that it is a declension is not incorrect then the elephant-tusk is acervate. sent20: there exists something such that that that it is rejective thing that is not discernible is not false does not hold. sent21: the elephant-tusk does waste hornbill if the suricate does not waste hornbill but it is a declension. sent22: the suricate does log guppy and is a kind of a Honduran. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the elephant-tusk is acervate.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the suricate is not rejective and it is not discernible.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the elephant-tusk is not acervate.; assump2 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that the suricate is non-rejective thing that is not discernible is not correct.; int3 -> int4: there is something such that the fact that it is not rejective and it is not discernible is wrong.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the bobbin is a declension.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__