the fact that if the psilophyton is not non-neurobiological then the Cotswold is acinar is false.
sent1: the fact that the psilophyton is non-exuvial and it is not a shahadah is not true if the Cotswold emends FICA. sent2: if that the Cotswold is a Montaigne and is not avitaminotic is not right it does nurse. sent3: the fact that something is not an anger and it is not acinar is false if it is neurobiological. sent4: if the psilophyton does anger it does emend Cotswold. sent5: the Cotswold does emend FICA if it is a nursing. sent6: the Cotswold is acinar if the fact that it is not an anger and does not emend Cotswold is incorrect. sent7: the trepan is neurobiological if that the psilophyton is neurobiological thing that does not emend moccasin is incorrect. sent8: the psilophyton is both not an anger and acinar. sent9: the psilophyton is acinar. sent10: if something does not emend Cotswold that it is neurobiological and it does not emend moccasin is false. sent11: the psilophyton emends Cotswold if it is not an anger and it is not neurobiological. sent12: the psilophyton does not tire trepan and is not a kind of a Ajax. sent13: something does not emend Cotswold if the fact that it is not exuvial and it is not a shahadah is not correct. sent14: if that the psilophyton does not anger and is not neurobiological is not true then it emends Cotswold. sent15: if the fact that something is not a kind of an anger and is not acinar does not hold then it is acinar. sent16: the psilophyton emends Cotswold if that it is not an anger and it is neurobiological is not correct. sent17: the Cotswold is acinar if the psilophyton does emend Cotswold. sent18: the psilophyton does not anger.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the psilophyton is neurobiological.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the psilophyton is not an anger and it is not neurobiological.; assump2 -> int1: the psilophyton is not neurobiological.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the psilophyton is both not an anger and not neurobiological does not hold.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: the psilophyton emends Cotswold.; sent17 & int4 -> int5: the Cotswold is not non-acinar.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the trepan is acinar is correct.
sent15 -> int6: the trepan is acinar if the fact that it is not an anger and it is acinar is not true.; sent3 -> int7: if the trepan is neurobiological then that it is not an anger and not acinar is not correct.; sent10 -> int8: that that the fact that the psilophyton is neurobiological and does not emend moccasin is not false does not hold is correct if it does not emend Cotswold.; sent13 -> int9: that the psilophyton does not emend Cotswold hold if the fact that it is not exuvial and is not a kind of a shahadah is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the psilophyton is not non-neurobiological then the Cotswold is acinar is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the psilophyton is non-exuvial and it is not a shahadah is not true if the Cotswold emends FICA. sent2: if that the Cotswold is a Montaigne and is not avitaminotic is not right it does nurse. sent3: the fact that something is not an anger and it is not acinar is false if it is neurobiological. sent4: if the psilophyton does anger it does emend Cotswold. sent5: the Cotswold does emend FICA if it is a nursing. sent6: the Cotswold is acinar if the fact that it is not an anger and does not emend Cotswold is incorrect. sent7: the trepan is neurobiological if that the psilophyton is neurobiological thing that does not emend moccasin is incorrect. sent8: the psilophyton is both not an anger and acinar. sent9: the psilophyton is acinar. sent10: if something does not emend Cotswold that it is neurobiological and it does not emend moccasin is false. sent11: the psilophyton emends Cotswold if it is not an anger and it is not neurobiological. sent12: the psilophyton does not tire trepan and is not a kind of a Ajax. sent13: something does not emend Cotswold if the fact that it is not exuvial and it is not a shahadah is not correct. sent14: if that the psilophyton does not anger and is not neurobiological is not true then it emends Cotswold. sent15: if the fact that something is not a kind of an anger and is not acinar does not hold then it is acinar. sent16: the psilophyton emends Cotswold if that it is not an anger and it is neurobiological is not correct. sent17: the Cotswold is acinar if the psilophyton does emend Cotswold. sent18: the psilophyton does not anger. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the psilophyton is neurobiological.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the psilophyton is not an anger and it is not neurobiological.; assump2 -> int1: the psilophyton is not neurobiological.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the psilophyton is both not an anger and not neurobiological does not hold.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: the psilophyton emends Cotswold.; sent17 & int4 -> int5: the Cotswold is not non-acinar.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__