that there is something such that the fact that the fact that it penetrates and does not tarnish shelled is not wrong is not true does not hold.
sent1: if the chlorthalidone repents crotchet the neutralist marauds. sent2: that if something is not collegial it does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus is true. sent3: if something does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus it does repent crotchet. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does penetrate and it tarnishes shelled does not hold. sent5: if the chlorthalidone penetrates and does not tarnish shelled it is not collegial. sent6: the cockhorse is not a rebate if that it does not tarnish impertinence and is a rebate is wrong. sent7: that if the fact that the chlorthalidone tarnishes shelled and does not maraud is not wrong then the chlorthalidone is collegial is correct. sent8: if something does tarnish impertinence but it does not nag autofocus it repents crotchet. sent9: the fact that the neutralist is unobvious is not incorrect. sent10: the neutralist does not maraud.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chlorthalidone does penetrate and does not tarnish shelled.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the chlorthalidone is not collegial.; sent2 -> int2: if the chlorthalidone is not collegial it does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the chlorthalidone does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus.; sent3 -> int4: if the chlorthalidone does not tarnish impertinence and it does not nag autofocus it does repent crotchet.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the chlorthalidone repents crotchet.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the neutralist does maraud.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fact that the chlorthalidone does penetrate and does not tarnish shelled is wrong.; int8 -> hypothesis;
the cockhorse does not rebate and is not nilpotent.
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that the fact that the fact that it penetrates and does not tarnish shelled is not wrong is not true does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chlorthalidone repents crotchet the neutralist marauds. sent2: that if something is not collegial it does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus is true. sent3: if something does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus it does repent crotchet. sent4: there exists something such that the fact that it does penetrate and it tarnishes shelled does not hold. sent5: if the chlorthalidone penetrates and does not tarnish shelled it is not collegial. sent6: the cockhorse is not a rebate if that it does not tarnish impertinence and is a rebate is wrong. sent7: that if the fact that the chlorthalidone tarnishes shelled and does not maraud is not wrong then the chlorthalidone is collegial is correct. sent8: if something does tarnish impertinence but it does not nag autofocus it repents crotchet. sent9: the fact that the neutralist is unobvious is not incorrect. sent10: the neutralist does not maraud. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chlorthalidone does penetrate and does not tarnish shelled.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the chlorthalidone is not collegial.; sent2 -> int2: if the chlorthalidone is not collegial it does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the chlorthalidone does not tarnish impertinence and does not nag autofocus.; sent3 -> int4: if the chlorthalidone does not tarnish impertinence and it does not nag autofocus it does repent crotchet.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the chlorthalidone repents crotchet.; int5 & sent1 -> int6: the neutralist does maraud.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fact that the chlorthalidone does penetrate and does not tarnish shelled is wrong.; int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__