the fact that the sightseer is not a kind of a invalidity and it does not mellow is not true.
sent1: the fact that the chopine is not a kind of an exponential is not incorrect if an equivocal thing is a kind of an illusion. sent2: the sightseer is not a invalidity and does not mellow if the Ab is not a turgor. sent3: if something is manageable and does shriek then the Ab is not an illusion. sent4: the perigon mellows. sent5: the perigon is not inertial but it is an exponential. sent6: if the chopine is not exponential then the fact that the perigon is not inertial but it is a kind of an exponential does not hold. sent7: if something is not a kind of an exponential then that it is not a invalidity and does not mellow does not hold. sent8: something shrieks if the fact that it is not unequivocal and it is a kind of an illusion is not right. sent9: the Ab is manageable. sent10: the fact that the Ab is not a turgor hold if it is manageable and it does shriek.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Ab is equivocal thing that is an illusion.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is non-unequivocal an illusion.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the chopine is not an exponential.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the fact that the perigon is not inertial but it is an exponential is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the Ab is not unequivocal but it is an illusion does not hold.; sent8 -> int6: if that the Ab is both not unequivocal and an illusion does not hold then it does shriek.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the Ab shrieks.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the Ab is manageable and shrieks.; int8 & sent10 -> int9: the Ab is not a turgor.; int9 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the sightseer is not a invalidity and does not mellow does not hold.
sent7 -> int10: if the sightseer is not exponential that it is not a invalidity and does not mellow is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sightseer is not a kind of a invalidity and it does not mellow is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the chopine is not a kind of an exponential is not incorrect if an equivocal thing is a kind of an illusion. sent2: the sightseer is not a invalidity and does not mellow if the Ab is not a turgor. sent3: if something is manageable and does shriek then the Ab is not an illusion. sent4: the perigon mellows. sent5: the perigon is not inertial but it is an exponential. sent6: if the chopine is not exponential then the fact that the perigon is not inertial but it is a kind of an exponential does not hold. sent7: if something is not a kind of an exponential then that it is not a invalidity and does not mellow does not hold. sent8: something shrieks if the fact that it is not unequivocal and it is a kind of an illusion is not right. sent9: the Ab is manageable. sent10: the fact that the Ab is not a turgor hold if it is manageable and it does shriek. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Ab is equivocal thing that is an illusion.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is non-unequivocal an illusion.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the chopine is not an exponential.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the fact that the perigon is not inertial but it is an exponential is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the Ab is not unequivocal but it is an illusion does not hold.; sent8 -> int6: if that the Ab is both not unequivocal and an illusion does not hold then it does shriek.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the Ab shrieks.; int7 & sent9 -> int8: the Ab is manageable and shrieks.; int8 & sent10 -> int9: the Ab is not a turgor.; int9 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__