the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it deduces revisionist is right then it is iridic or it is not a theme or both is not true.
sent1: if something deduces revisionist but it is not irresponsible it is not a kind of a squint. sent2: there is something such that if it does deduce revisionist then either it is iridic or it is a theme or both. sent3: that something is effective and/or is not androgenic if it is loamless is not false. sent4: the fact that the toilet is not irresponsible hold. sent5: the signora does theme and/or it is not a catarrhine if that it is not a forte is correct. sent6: the toilet is not atrophic. sent7: if the toilet is not a squint then it is not non-iridic or it does theme or both. sent8: if the toilet does deduce revisionist then it is iridic and/or it is a kind of a theme. sent9: the toilet is coccygeal but it is not patronymic. sent10: if something is not a squint then it is iridic and/or it is not a theme.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the toilet deduces revisionist.; assump1 & sent4 -> int1: the toilet does deduce revisionist but it is not irresponsible.; sent1 -> int2: the toilet is not a kind of a squint if it deduces revisionist and it is not irresponsible.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the toilet is not a squint.; sent10 -> int4: the toilet is iridic and/or is not a theme if it is not a squint.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the toilet is iridic and/or it is not a kind of a theme.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: if the toilet deduces revisionist then it is iridic and/or it is not a theme.; int6 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that if it is loamless then it is effective or is not androgenic or both.
sent3 -> int7: the fact that the toilet is not ineffective or not androgenic or both is true if it is loamless.; int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it deduces revisionist is right then it is iridic or it is not a theme or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something deduces revisionist but it is not irresponsible it is not a kind of a squint. sent2: there is something such that if it does deduce revisionist then either it is iridic or it is a theme or both. sent3: that something is effective and/or is not androgenic if it is loamless is not false. sent4: the fact that the toilet is not irresponsible hold. sent5: the signora does theme and/or it is not a catarrhine if that it is not a forte is correct. sent6: the toilet is not atrophic. sent7: if the toilet is not a squint then it is not non-iridic or it does theme or both. sent8: if the toilet does deduce revisionist then it is iridic and/or it is a kind of a theme. sent9: the toilet is coccygeal but it is not patronymic. sent10: if something is not a squint then it is iridic and/or it is not a theme. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the toilet deduces revisionist.; assump1 & sent4 -> int1: the toilet does deduce revisionist but it is not irresponsible.; sent1 -> int2: the toilet is not a kind of a squint if it deduces revisionist and it is not irresponsible.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the toilet is not a squint.; sent10 -> int4: the toilet is iridic and/or is not a theme if it is not a squint.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the toilet is iridic and/or it is not a kind of a theme.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: if the toilet deduces revisionist then it is iridic and/or it is not a theme.; int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__