there exists something such that if it is not elocutionary that it is both a Kerbala and irresponsible is incorrect.
sent1: the fact that the cue does fragment pressed and it is a kind of a vacuum does not hold if it is a Kerbala. sent2: if something is not elocutionary then that it is a Kerbala and is irresponsible does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if it does not fragment cue then that it is destructible and responsible is not right.
sent2 -> int1: if the cue is non-elocutionary the fact that it is both a Kerbala and irresponsible does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not elocutionary that it is both a Kerbala and irresponsible is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the cue does fragment pressed and it is a kind of a vacuum does not hold if it is a Kerbala. sent2: if something is not elocutionary then that it is a Kerbala and is irresponsible does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if it does not fragment cue then that it is destructible and responsible is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: if the cue is non-elocutionary the fact that it is both a Kerbala and irresponsible does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__