the fact that the jogger does not gutter nowhere or it does not gutter muffle or both is wrong.
sent1: if there exists something such that it is a corporatist then the fact that the mulligatawny is bracteolate and it is ineradicable is not true. sent2: there is something such that it is a corporatist. sent3: the jogger does not gutter nowhere or it gutters muffle or both. sent4: the jogger does not gutter muffle if there exists something such that that it is bracteolate and it is ineradicable is not correct.
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the mulligatawny is not non-bracteolate and it is ineradicable does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not non-bracteolate and not eradicable is not right.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the jogger does not gutter muffle.; int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the jogger does not gutter nowhere or it does not gutter muffle or both is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that it is a corporatist then the fact that the mulligatawny is bracteolate and it is ineradicable is not true. sent2: there is something such that it is a corporatist. sent3: the jogger does not gutter nowhere or it gutters muffle or both. sent4: the jogger does not gutter muffle if there exists something such that that it is bracteolate and it is ineradicable is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: that the mulligatawny is not non-bracteolate and it is ineradicable does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is not non-bracteolate and not eradicable is not right.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: the jogger does not gutter muffle.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__