the fact that that there is something such that if the fact that it is uncompassionate is not incorrect it is not piratical is right is not correct.
sent1: if the driveshaft is corporate then it does not crape and it is modest. sent2: if something that is not a crape frames it is not uncompassionate. sent3: something does frame if it is piratical. sent4: if something that is not a crape frames then it is not compassionate. sent5: the driveshaft is uncompassionate if it is not a crape and it is a framing. sent6: there exists something such that if it overreaches insulin it is not a papier-mache. sent7: something is not a crape but it is a framing if it is piratical. sent8: there exists something such that if it is uncompassionate it is piratical. sent9: the driveshaft is piratical if it is uncompassionate. sent10: the reagin does not overreach kettle. sent11: if the fact that the nucleoside does not shun handle but it hyperventilates does not hold then the insulin is not a impermanence. sent12: something is not uncompassionate but it is a kind of a guide if it is not a impermanence. sent13: the fact that the driveshaft is a kind of a framing is not false.
sent7 -> int1: if the fact that the driveshaft is piratical hold it is not a crape and is a framing.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the driveshaft is piratical.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the driveshaft is not a crape but a framing.; sent2 -> int3: the driveshaft is not uncompassionate if it is both not a crape and a framing.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the driveshaft is not uncompassionate is not wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the driveshaft is uncompassionate.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the driveshaft is not piratical.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the driveshaft is not piratical if it is uncompassionate.; int7 -> hypothesis;
the insulin frames.
sent12 -> int8: the insulin is not uncompassionate and is a guide if it is not a kind of a impermanence.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that there is something such that if the fact that it is uncompassionate is not incorrect it is not piratical is right is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the driveshaft is corporate then it does not crape and it is modest. sent2: if something that is not a crape frames it is not uncompassionate. sent3: something does frame if it is piratical. sent4: if something that is not a crape frames then it is not compassionate. sent5: the driveshaft is uncompassionate if it is not a crape and it is a framing. sent6: there exists something such that if it overreaches insulin it is not a papier-mache. sent7: something is not a crape but it is a framing if it is piratical. sent8: there exists something such that if it is uncompassionate it is piratical. sent9: the driveshaft is piratical if it is uncompassionate. sent10: the reagin does not overreach kettle. sent11: if the fact that the nucleoside does not shun handle but it hyperventilates does not hold then the insulin is not a impermanence. sent12: something is not uncompassionate but it is a kind of a guide if it is not a impermanence. sent13: the fact that the driveshaft is a kind of a framing is not false. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: if the fact that the driveshaft is piratical hold it is not a crape and is a framing.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the driveshaft is piratical.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the driveshaft is not a crape but a framing.; sent2 -> int3: the driveshaft is not uncompassionate if it is both not a crape and a framing.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the driveshaft is not uncompassionate is not wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the driveshaft is uncompassionate.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the driveshaft is not piratical.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the driveshaft is not piratical if it is uncompassionate.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__