the no-show does bog Camponotus.
sent1: the fact that either the jerk does unpick myelogram or it is not attributable or both is false if the campsite does ration. sent2: the jerk does unpick myelogram and/or is not attributable if it does not winnow territoriality. sent3: the jerk does not winnow territoriality. sent4: the campsite is non-plutocratic thing that is not Marian if it is impolitic. sent5: the allyl is plutocratic or it is not a kind of a buckle or both. sent6: the campsite is impolitic. sent7: if the jerk does not unpick myelogram then that it is a rationing and it is attributable is false. sent8: The territoriality does not winnow jerk. sent9: the campsite is not a kind of a buckle if the fact that it is not a kind of a magnesium and it is a rationing does not hold. sent10: if the campsite is not a buckle and it is not plutocratic then the no-show does not bog Camponotus.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the campsite is not a magnesium and is a rationing.; assump1 -> int1: the campsite does ration.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the jerk does unpick myelogram and/or it is not attributable is wrong.; sent2 & sent3 -> int3: the jerk does unpick myelogram and/or it is not attributable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the campsite is not a magnesium but it is a kind of a rationing is false.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the campsite is not a buckle.; sent4 & sent6 -> int7: the campsite is not plutocratic and not Marian.; int7 -> int8: the campsite is not plutocratic.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the campsite is both not a buckle and not plutocratic.; int9 & sent10 -> hypothesis;
the no-show does bog Camponotus.
sent5 -> int10: that something is plutocratic or it is not a kind of a buckle or both is not incorrect.;
$hypothesis$ = the no-show does bog Camponotus. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either the jerk does unpick myelogram or it is not attributable or both is false if the campsite does ration. sent2: the jerk does unpick myelogram and/or is not attributable if it does not winnow territoriality. sent3: the jerk does not winnow territoriality. sent4: the campsite is non-plutocratic thing that is not Marian if it is impolitic. sent5: the allyl is plutocratic or it is not a kind of a buckle or both. sent6: the campsite is impolitic. sent7: if the jerk does not unpick myelogram then that it is a rationing and it is attributable is false. sent8: The territoriality does not winnow jerk. sent9: the campsite is not a kind of a buckle if the fact that it is not a kind of a magnesium and it is a rationing does not hold. sent10: if the campsite is not a buckle and it is not plutocratic then the no-show does not bog Camponotus. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the campsite is not a magnesium and is a rationing.; assump1 -> int1: the campsite does ration.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the jerk does unpick myelogram and/or it is not attributable is wrong.; sent2 & sent3 -> int3: the jerk does unpick myelogram and/or it is not attributable.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the campsite is not a magnesium but it is a kind of a rationing is false.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the campsite is not a buckle.; sent4 & sent6 -> int7: the campsite is not plutocratic and not Marian.; int7 -> int8: the campsite is not plutocratic.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the campsite is both not a buckle and not plutocratic.; int9 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__