that there exists something such that if it is unrighteous that it is a Hittite and it is not tegular is incorrect is false.
sent1: the blizzard is not a tag if it is logogrammatic and it is unrighteous. sent2: the tonguefish entails Chlamyphorus and does clout ectoparasite if it is not a kind of a ELA. sent3: if the blizzard is not a tag that it is a kind of a Hittite and it is not tegular is wrong. sent4: the superconductivity does tag if the fact that the tonguefish is not a tag and it is not a Hittite is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is unrighteous hold then the fact that it is Hittite but not non-tegular is not true. sent6: the tonguefish is not a ELA. sent7: if the tonguefish does clout ectoparasite then the blizzard is logogrammatic. sent8: if the fact that something is logogrammatic thing that is not a kind of a ELA does not hold then it is not a parrotfish. sent9: that the blizzard is both Hittite and tegular is incorrect if it is unrighteous. sent10: that something is logogrammatic but not a ELA does not hold if it is not unrighteous. sent11: the blizzard does entail Chlamyphorus.
sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the tonguefish entails Chlamyphorus and it clouts ectoparasite.; int1 -> int2: the tonguefish does clout ectoparasite.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the blizzard is logogrammatic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the blizzard is unrighteous.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the blizzard is not non-logogrammatic and not righteous.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the blizzard is not a kind of a tag.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the blizzard is a kind of a Hittite but it is not tegular does not hold.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that that the blizzard is a Hittite and is not tegular is not incorrect is not true if it is unrighteous.; int7 -> hypothesis;
the superconductivity is not a kind of a parrotfish.
sent8 -> int8: the superconductivity is not a parrotfish if the fact that it is logogrammatic and it is not a ELA is not correct.; sent10 -> int9: if the superconductivity is not unrighteous that it is logogrammatic thing that is not a ELA is wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is unrighteous that it is a Hittite and it is not tegular is incorrect is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the blizzard is not a tag if it is logogrammatic and it is unrighteous. sent2: the tonguefish entails Chlamyphorus and does clout ectoparasite if it is not a kind of a ELA. sent3: if the blizzard is not a tag that it is a kind of a Hittite and it is not tegular is wrong. sent4: the superconductivity does tag if the fact that the tonguefish is not a tag and it is not a Hittite is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if that it is unrighteous hold then the fact that it is Hittite but not non-tegular is not true. sent6: the tonguefish is not a ELA. sent7: if the tonguefish does clout ectoparasite then the blizzard is logogrammatic. sent8: if the fact that something is logogrammatic thing that is not a kind of a ELA does not hold then it is not a parrotfish. sent9: that the blizzard is both Hittite and tegular is incorrect if it is unrighteous. sent10: that something is logogrammatic but not a ELA does not hold if it is not unrighteous. sent11: the blizzard does entail Chlamyphorus. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the tonguefish entails Chlamyphorus and it clouts ectoparasite.; int1 -> int2: the tonguefish does clout ectoparasite.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the blizzard is logogrammatic.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the blizzard is unrighteous.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the blizzard is not non-logogrammatic and not righteous.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the blizzard is not a kind of a tag.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the blizzard is a kind of a Hittite but it is not tegular does not hold.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: that that the blizzard is a Hittite and is not tegular is not incorrect is not true if it is unrighteous.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__