the fact that the coulisse is not contemptible or it overrefines picker or both does not hold.
sent1: the fact that everything leaves and it is cousinly is not wrong. sent2: if the peccary does leave the fact that it does not overrefine centerline and it is not a kind of a electrosurgery is not true. sent3: if that the peccary is simian hold then the territory is vesicular and not a paleoethnography. sent4: if the warden is a simian then the fact that it is a electrosurgery is not wrong. sent5: if the warden does overrefine centerline but it is not angular it is not a electrosurgery. sent6: if the peccary is not non-vesicular the warden is simian. sent7: if the coulisse is not a paleoethnography then the peccary is vesicular. sent8: that something is not angular or overrefines Jesuitism or both is wrong if it is vesicular. sent9: the coulisse is not vesicular. sent10: something that is not contemptible and/or does overrefine picker is not a paleoethnography.
sent10 -> int1: if the coulisse is not contemptible and/or it does overrefine picker then it is not a paleoethnography.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the coulisse is not contemptible and/or it overrefines picker.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the coulisse is not a paleoethnography.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the peccary is vesicular.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the warden is a kind of a simian.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the warden is a electrosurgery.;
that that the territory is not angular and/or does overrefine Jesuitism is not correct is not wrong.
sent8 -> int6: that either the territory is not angular or it does overrefine Jesuitism or both is not correct if it is vesicular.; sent1 -> int7: the peccary does leave and it is cousinly.; int7 -> int8: the peccary does leave.; sent2 & int8 -> int9: that the fact that the peccary does not overrefine centerline and it is not a electrosurgery is wrong is correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the coulisse is not contemptible or it overrefines picker or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that everything leaves and it is cousinly is not wrong. sent2: if the peccary does leave the fact that it does not overrefine centerline and it is not a kind of a electrosurgery is not true. sent3: if that the peccary is simian hold then the territory is vesicular and not a paleoethnography. sent4: if the warden is a simian then the fact that it is a electrosurgery is not wrong. sent5: if the warden does overrefine centerline but it is not angular it is not a electrosurgery. sent6: if the peccary is not non-vesicular the warden is simian. sent7: if the coulisse is not a paleoethnography then the peccary is vesicular. sent8: that something is not angular or overrefines Jesuitism or both is wrong if it is vesicular. sent9: the coulisse is not vesicular. sent10: something that is not contemptible and/or does overrefine picker is not a paleoethnography. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: if the coulisse is not contemptible and/or it does overrefine picker then it is not a paleoethnography.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the coulisse is not contemptible and/or it overrefines picker.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the coulisse is not a paleoethnography.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the peccary is vesicular.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the warden is a kind of a simian.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the warden is a electrosurgery.; __UNKNOWN__