the liqueur does not expiate.
sent1: if something does not expiate the fact that it does not medicate Zygocactus and is incompetent is wrong. sent2: there are diagnostic things. sent3: if the fact that the iguanodon is hydrokinetic is correct then the integrator does complete. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not medicate Zygocactus and it is incompetent does not hold then the fact that the contrivance does swan is not false. sent5: if the iguanodon is diagnostic then the integrator is complete. sent6: if something is diagnostic the iguanodon is diagnostic and/or it is hydrokinetic. sent7: if the contrivance does swan then the integrator does not complete.
sent1 -> int1: if that the liqueur does not expiate hold then that it does not medicate Zygocactus and it is an incompetent is false.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the liqueur does not expiate.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the liqueur does not medicate Zygocactus and is a kind of an incompetent is false.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it does not medicate Zygocactus and is an incompetent is false.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the contrivance does swan.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the integrator is not complete.; sent2 & sent6 -> int6: the iguanodon is diagnostic and/or is not non-hydrokinetic.; int6 & sent5 & sent3 -> int7: the integrator is not incomplete.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the liqueur does not expiate. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not expiate the fact that it does not medicate Zygocactus and is incompetent is wrong. sent2: there are diagnostic things. sent3: if the fact that the iguanodon is hydrokinetic is correct then the integrator does complete. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it does not medicate Zygocactus and it is incompetent does not hold then the fact that the contrivance does swan is not false. sent5: if the iguanodon is diagnostic then the integrator is complete. sent6: if something is diagnostic the iguanodon is diagnostic and/or it is hydrokinetic. sent7: if the contrivance does swan then the integrator does not complete. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: if that the liqueur does not expiate hold then that it does not medicate Zygocactus and it is an incompetent is false.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the liqueur does not expiate.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: that the liqueur does not medicate Zygocactus and is a kind of an incompetent is false.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it does not medicate Zygocactus and is an incompetent is false.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the contrivance does swan.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the integrator is not complete.; sent2 & sent6 -> int6: the iguanodon is diagnostic and/or is not non-hydrokinetic.; int6 & sent5 & sent3 -> int7: the integrator is not incomplete.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__