the cheatgrass does not stew.
sent1: if the fact that the prince luxuriates waggery and rubbishes thermography does not hold then the cheatgrass does not rubbishes thermography. sent2: if the prince does not rubbish thermography the cheatgrass does not rubbish thermography. sent3: either something is a undulation or it is not precise or both. sent4: something does rubbish thermography if it is a lowness and it is not a stew. sent5: something that is anticholinergic is a coven. sent6: that the prince luxuriates waggery and it does rubbish thermography does not hold if there is something such that it does not rubbish thermography. sent7: if the sugarplum is a coven that the cheatgrass is a lowness hold. sent8: the sugarplum is not a lowness if it does stew. sent9: something does not rubbish thermography. sent10: the sugarplum is anticholinergic if something is a kind of a undulation or it is not precise or both.
sent3 & sent10 -> int1: the sugarplum is a kind of a anticholinergic.; sent5 -> int2: if that the sugarplum is anticholinergic is true then it is a coven.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sugarplum is a coven.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the cheatgrass is a lowness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cheatgrass is not a stew.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: the cheatgrass is a lowness and not a stew.; sent4 -> int6: the cheatgrass does rubbish thermography if it is a lowness and it does not stew.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the cheatgrass rubbishes thermography.; sent9 & sent6 -> int8: that that the prince does luxuriate waggery and does rubbish thermography hold does not hold.; sent1 & int8 -> int9: the cheatgrass does not rubbish thermography.; int7 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis;
the snare rubbishes C-horizon.
$hypothesis$ = the cheatgrass does not stew. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the prince luxuriates waggery and rubbishes thermography does not hold then the cheatgrass does not rubbishes thermography. sent2: if the prince does not rubbish thermography the cheatgrass does not rubbish thermography. sent3: either something is a undulation or it is not precise or both. sent4: something does rubbish thermography if it is a lowness and it is not a stew. sent5: something that is anticholinergic is a coven. sent6: that the prince luxuriates waggery and it does rubbish thermography does not hold if there is something such that it does not rubbish thermography. sent7: if the sugarplum is a coven that the cheatgrass is a lowness hold. sent8: the sugarplum is not a lowness if it does stew. sent9: something does not rubbish thermography. sent10: the sugarplum is anticholinergic if something is a kind of a undulation or it is not precise or both. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent10 -> int1: the sugarplum is a kind of a anticholinergic.; sent5 -> int2: if that the sugarplum is anticholinergic is true then it is a coven.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the sugarplum is a coven.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the cheatgrass is a lowness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cheatgrass is not a stew.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: the cheatgrass is a lowness and not a stew.; sent4 -> int6: the cheatgrass does rubbish thermography if it is a lowness and it does not stew.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the cheatgrass rubbishes thermography.; sent9 & sent6 -> int8: that that the prince does luxuriate waggery and does rubbish thermography hold does not hold.; sent1 & int8 -> int9: the cheatgrass does not rubbish thermography.; int7 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__