that there exists something such that it is not unplayable is not correct.
sent1: something that is not a naturalism and is playable is a cope. sent2: the fact that the wolf is playable and it is a Sabine is wrong. sent3: the permafrost is collateral. sent4: the ordinand is a naturalism if the bluegill is not a kind of a redbone but it is milch. sent5: something is a kind of a collateral if it is a naturalism. sent6: the bluegill is not a collateral if it is milch. sent7: the permafrost is not milch. sent8: the permafrost is not a redbone. sent9: if something is a Mongolian then it is not a kind of a Callas. sent10: the permafrost is not playable. sent11: if the fact that something is collateral but not milch is false then it is not a obturator. sent12: if the bluegill is a collateral it is not playable. sent13: the bismark is milch. sent14: if the ordinand is azotemic then that the permafrost is not non-collateral and it is a obturator does not hold. sent15: something is not azotemic if that that it is a obturator and it is not cataphatic is true is false. sent16: if the bluegill is not playable it is not a redbone and it is milch. sent17: that the ordinand is a kind of a obturator that is not cataphatic does not hold if the permafrost is a collateral. sent18: the bluegill is cataphatic. sent19: something is not azotemic if it is cataphatic. sent20: the bluegill is not playable and is collateral if it is not milch. sent21: a naturalism is azotemic.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bluegill is not playable.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the bluegill is not a redbone but it is milch.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the ordinand is a naturalism.; sent21 -> int3: if the ordinand is a naturalism then it is azotemic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the ordinand is azotemic.; sent15 -> int5: if the fact that the ordinand is a obturator but it is not cataphatic is false then it is not azotemic.; sent17 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the ordinand is a obturator but it is not cataphatic does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the ordinand is not azotemic.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the bluegill is playable.; int9 -> hypothesis;
the ratter is a cope.
sent1 -> int10: if the ratter is not a naturalism but it is playable it copes.;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that it is not unplayable is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a naturalism and is playable is a cope. sent2: the fact that the wolf is playable and it is a Sabine is wrong. sent3: the permafrost is collateral. sent4: the ordinand is a naturalism if the bluegill is not a kind of a redbone but it is milch. sent5: something is a kind of a collateral if it is a naturalism. sent6: the bluegill is not a collateral if it is milch. sent7: the permafrost is not milch. sent8: the permafrost is not a redbone. sent9: if something is a Mongolian then it is not a kind of a Callas. sent10: the permafrost is not playable. sent11: if the fact that something is collateral but not milch is false then it is not a obturator. sent12: if the bluegill is a collateral it is not playable. sent13: the bismark is milch. sent14: if the ordinand is azotemic then that the permafrost is not non-collateral and it is a obturator does not hold. sent15: something is not azotemic if that that it is a obturator and it is not cataphatic is true is false. sent16: if the bluegill is not playable it is not a redbone and it is milch. sent17: that the ordinand is a kind of a obturator that is not cataphatic does not hold if the permafrost is a collateral. sent18: the bluegill is cataphatic. sent19: something is not azotemic if it is cataphatic. sent20: the bluegill is not playable and is collateral if it is not milch. sent21: a naturalism is azotemic. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bluegill is not playable.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the bluegill is not a redbone but it is milch.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the ordinand is a naturalism.; sent21 -> int3: if the ordinand is a naturalism then it is azotemic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the ordinand is azotemic.; sent15 -> int5: if the fact that the ordinand is a obturator but it is not cataphatic is false then it is not azotemic.; sent17 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the ordinand is a obturator but it is not cataphatic does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the ordinand is not azotemic.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the bluegill is playable.; int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__