the fact that the microeconomist is a kind of a wretchedness if the overcompensation is not a ravage and is not estuarine is not right.
sent1: if the overcompensation is not a wretchedness then that the microeconomist is a kind of non-estuarine thing that is a kind of a ravage does not hold. sent2: the fact that the overcompensation is both not a ravage and not estuarine is incorrect if that the microeconomist is not a wretchedness is correct. sent3: something is not a wretchedness and does not perceive Jynx if it does not perceive Federal. sent4: that the overcompensation is a ravage but it is not estuarine does not hold.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the microeconomist is not a wretchedness is not false.; sent2 & assump2 -> int1: that the overcompensation is not a ravage and it is not estuarine does not hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the overcompensation is not a kind of a ravage and it is not estuarine.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the microeconomist is a kind of a wretchedness.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the journal is not a wretchedness.
sent3 -> int4: if the journal does not perceive Federal it is not a wretchedness and does not perceive Jynx.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the microeconomist is a kind of a wretchedness if the overcompensation is not a ravage and is not estuarine is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the overcompensation is not a wretchedness then that the microeconomist is a kind of non-estuarine thing that is a kind of a ravage does not hold. sent2: the fact that the overcompensation is both not a ravage and not estuarine is incorrect if that the microeconomist is not a wretchedness is correct. sent3: something is not a wretchedness and does not perceive Jynx if it does not perceive Federal. sent4: that the overcompensation is a ravage but it is not estuarine does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the microeconomist is not a wretchedness is not false.; sent2 & assump2 -> int1: that the overcompensation is not a ravage and it is not estuarine does not hold.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the overcompensation is not a kind of a ravage and it is not estuarine.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the microeconomist is a kind of a wretchedness.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__