the fact that if the sternum is a trainer that does occult Durante then the romanticist is not a kind of a seismography is not correct.
sent1: the romanticist is a seismography. sent2: the sternum is a trainer. sent3: if a trainer does occult Durante then that the romanticist is not a kind of a seismography hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sternum is a trainer and it does occult Durante.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a trainer and it occults Durante.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the romanticist is not a kind of a seismography.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that if the sternum is a trainer that does occult Durante then the romanticist is not a kind of a seismography is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the romanticist is a seismography. sent2: the sternum is a trainer. sent3: if a trainer does occult Durante then that the romanticist is not a kind of a seismography hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sternum is a trainer and it does occult Durante.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is a kind of a trainer and it occults Durante.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the romanticist is not a kind of a seismography.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__