that something is not a ijtihad is not correct.
sent1: that if the brownie is not microbial then the brownie is not a Ephesian but chyliferous is correct. sent2: the promethium is not conceptualistic but it is a ijtihad if something is microbial. sent3: the posseman ejaculates pretermission if there exists something such that the fact that it is not postmodernist and it does not ejaculates pretermission is not true. sent4: the fact that something is non-Ephesian but it is chyliferous does not hold if it is a kind of a ijtihad. sent5: if something ejaculates pretermission the fact that it does not dictate technical and is not a mycology is incorrect. sent6: the brownie is not microbial. sent7: if something dictates technical the fact that it is not parliamentary and/or it does not seep grab is wrong. sent8: something dictates technical if that it does not dictates technical and it is not a mycology does not hold. sent9: the fact that the parakeet is not postmodernist and does not ejaculate pretermission is incorrect. sent10: something is microbial if that either it is not parliamentary or it does not seep grab or both is not correct.
sent4 -> int1: if the brownie is a ijtihad the fact that it is not a kind of a Ephesian and it is chyliferous is not right.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the brownie is a ijtihad.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the brownie is not a Ephesian but it is chyliferous does not hold.; sent1 & sent6 -> int3: the brownie is not Ephesian but it is chyliferous.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the brownie is not a ijtihad.; int5 -> hypothesis;
the promethium is not conceptualistic but it is a ijtihad.
sent10 -> int6: if the fact that either the posseman is not parliamentary or it does not seep grab or both is wrong then it is microbial.; sent7 -> int7: if the posseman dictates technical that it is not parliamentary or it does not seep grab or both is false.; sent8 -> int8: the posseman does dictate technical if that it does not dictate technical and it is not a mycology is not right.; sent5 -> int9: the fact that the posseman does not dictate technical and it is not a kind of a mycology is false if it does ejaculate pretermission.; sent9 -> int10: there is something such that the fact that it is not postmodernist and it does not ejaculate pretermission does not hold.; int10 & sent3 -> int11: the fact that the posseman does ejaculate pretermission is not incorrect.; int9 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the posseman does not dictate technical and is not a mycology is not right.; int8 & int12 -> int13: the posseman does dictate technical.; int7 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the posseman is non-parliamentary and/or does not seep grab is wrong.; int6 & int14 -> int15: the posseman is microbial.; int15 -> int16: there are microbial things.; int16 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that something is not a ijtihad is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that if the brownie is not microbial then the brownie is not a Ephesian but chyliferous is correct. sent2: the promethium is not conceptualistic but it is a ijtihad if something is microbial. sent3: the posseman ejaculates pretermission if there exists something such that the fact that it is not postmodernist and it does not ejaculates pretermission is not true. sent4: the fact that something is non-Ephesian but it is chyliferous does not hold if it is a kind of a ijtihad. sent5: if something ejaculates pretermission the fact that it does not dictate technical and is not a mycology is incorrect. sent6: the brownie is not microbial. sent7: if something dictates technical the fact that it is not parliamentary and/or it does not seep grab is wrong. sent8: something dictates technical if that it does not dictates technical and it is not a mycology does not hold. sent9: the fact that the parakeet is not postmodernist and does not ejaculate pretermission is incorrect. sent10: something is microbial if that either it is not parliamentary or it does not seep grab or both is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: if the brownie is a ijtihad the fact that it is not a kind of a Ephesian and it is chyliferous is not right.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the brownie is a ijtihad.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the brownie is not a Ephesian but it is chyliferous does not hold.; sent1 & sent6 -> int3: the brownie is not Ephesian but it is chyliferous.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the brownie is not a ijtihad.; int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__