the L-dopa is a Jolson.
sent1: if something is a squish and/or it is not a Trogium then it is not a Jolson. sent2: the fantasist is not immeasurable. sent3: that the woad either does not manhandle graphologist or does not awe L-dopa or both is not right if the fantasist is not immeasurable. sent4: if the fact that the woad does not manhandle graphologist and/or it does not awe L-dopa is incorrect then the L-dopa is a Jolson. sent5: if the fact that the woad does not manhandle graphologist or it awes L-dopa or both is wrong then the L-dopa is a kind of a Jolson.
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the woad does not manhandle graphologist and/or it does not awe L-dopa is incorrect.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;
the L-dopa manhandles graphologist.
sent1 -> int2: the fantasist is not a Jolson if either it is a squish or it is not a kind of a Trogium or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the L-dopa is a Jolson. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a squish and/or it is not a Trogium then it is not a Jolson. sent2: the fantasist is not immeasurable. sent3: that the woad either does not manhandle graphologist or does not awe L-dopa or both is not right if the fantasist is not immeasurable. sent4: if the fact that the woad does not manhandle graphologist and/or it does not awe L-dopa is incorrect then the L-dopa is a Jolson. sent5: if the fact that the woad does not manhandle graphologist or it awes L-dopa or both is wrong then the L-dopa is a kind of a Jolson. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the fact that the woad does not manhandle graphologist and/or it does not awe L-dopa is incorrect.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__