the fact that the bushbuck is not a Ellsworth and does not numb is not correct.
sent1: if the Colombian is unprovocative and does reeve it is a turtle. sent2: the Colombian is a kind of a skinful. sent3: the fact that the bushbuck is not a kind of a Ellsworth and does not numb is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does not govern ophthalmologist hold. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a surrender. sent5: the Colombian is not a skinful if the fact that the bushbuck does govern ophthalmologist but it does not numb is not true. sent6: if the Colombian is unprovocative but it is not a reeve then it does turtle. sent7: the Colombian is a surrender. sent8: if something is a turtle then the fact that it is not a Ellsworth and does not numb does not hold. sent9: the Colombian does not govern ophthalmologist if it turtles and is a skinful. sent10: if that the fisherman is a nape and not a Ellsworth is not right it is a Ellsworth. sent11: the fact that that that the bushbuck does govern ophthalmologist but it does not numb is not false is not correct hold if the fisherman is a Ellsworth. sent12: if the fact that the Colombian is unprovocative and does not reeve is not correct it does not surrender.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Colombian is unprovocative and is not a kind of a reeve is incorrect.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the Colombian is not a surrender.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the Colombian is both unprovocative and not a reeve.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the Colombian does turtle.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the Colombian does turtle and it is a skinful.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the Colombian does not govern ophthalmologist.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it does not govern ophthalmologist.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
that the bushbuck is not a Ellsworth and does not numb does not hold.
sent8 -> int8: if the bushbuck does turtle then that it is not a Ellsworth and does not numb is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the bushbuck is not a Ellsworth and does not numb is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Colombian is unprovocative and does reeve it is a turtle. sent2: the Colombian is a kind of a skinful. sent3: the fact that the bushbuck is not a kind of a Ellsworth and does not numb is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does not govern ophthalmologist hold. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a surrender. sent5: the Colombian is not a skinful if the fact that the bushbuck does govern ophthalmologist but it does not numb is not true. sent6: if the Colombian is unprovocative but it is not a reeve then it does turtle. sent7: the Colombian is a surrender. sent8: if something is a turtle then the fact that it is not a Ellsworth and does not numb does not hold. sent9: the Colombian does not govern ophthalmologist if it turtles and is a skinful. sent10: if that the fisherman is a nape and not a Ellsworth is not right it is a Ellsworth. sent11: the fact that that that the bushbuck does govern ophthalmologist but it does not numb is not false is not correct hold if the fisherman is a Ellsworth. sent12: if the fact that the Colombian is unprovocative and does not reeve is not correct it does not surrender. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Colombian is unprovocative and is not a kind of a reeve is incorrect.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the Colombian is not a surrender.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the Colombian is both unprovocative and not a reeve.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the Colombian does turtle.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: the Colombian does turtle and it is a skinful.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the Colombian does not govern ophthalmologist.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it does not govern ophthalmologist.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__