the aspersorium does not exploit.
sent1: the aspersorium is not seamanlike and is non-unimodal if the authorizer is unservile. sent2: if something is not seamanlike but non-unimodal it does not exploit. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is not unimodal is correct that the authorizer is not seamanlike is right. sent4: everything is seamanlike. sent5: if that the cabinet is viricidal hold then the authorizer is unservile. sent6: if the signature is not a Khedive but an acquirer the northwester is not a kind of a Khedive. sent7: if something is appositional then it is viricidal. sent8: something does exploit. sent9: if the secondary is unimodal then the aspersorium does exploit. sent10: something is barytic and/or appositional if it is not a kind of a Khedive.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the secondary is non-unimodal.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not unimodal.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the authorizer is not seamanlike.; sent4 -> int3: the authorizer is seamanlike.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the secondary is unimodal.; int5 & sent9 -> hypothesis;
that the aspersorium does not exploit is not false.
sent2 -> int6: if the aspersorium is unseamanlike thing that is non-unimodal then it does not exploit.; sent7 -> int7: the cabinet is viricidal if it is appositional.; sent10 -> int8: the northwester either is barytic or is appositional or both if it is not a Khedive.;
$hypothesis$ = the aspersorium does not exploit. ; $context$ = sent1: the aspersorium is not seamanlike and is non-unimodal if the authorizer is unservile. sent2: if something is not seamanlike but non-unimodal it does not exploit. sent3: if there exists something such that that it is not unimodal is correct that the authorizer is not seamanlike is right. sent4: everything is seamanlike. sent5: if that the cabinet is viricidal hold then the authorizer is unservile. sent6: if the signature is not a Khedive but an acquirer the northwester is not a kind of a Khedive. sent7: if something is appositional then it is viricidal. sent8: something does exploit. sent9: if the secondary is unimodal then the aspersorium does exploit. sent10: something is barytic and/or appositional if it is not a kind of a Khedive. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the secondary is non-unimodal.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not unimodal.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the authorizer is not seamanlike.; sent4 -> int3: the authorizer is seamanlike.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the secondary is unimodal.; int5 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__