that the reporter is nontaxable but it is palpable is not right if the blade does not volatilize.
sent1: that that the reporter is not nonexempt and is palpable is right is false if the blade is not nonexempt. sent2: the fact that the reporter is nonexempt and it is palpable is not right. sent3: if the blade is not palpable the reporter is not palpable but it is nonexempt. sent4: the blade does volatilize if it is nonexempt.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the blade is nonexempt is not wrong.; sent4 & assump2 -> int1: the blade does volatilize.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the blade does not volatilize.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the blade is not nonexempt.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the reporter is not nonexempt but palpable is not correct.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the reporter is nontaxable but it is palpable is not right if the blade does not volatilize. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the reporter is not nonexempt and is palpable is right is false if the blade is not nonexempt. sent2: the fact that the reporter is nonexempt and it is palpable is not right. sent3: if the blade is not palpable the reporter is not palpable but it is nonexempt. sent4: the blade does volatilize if it is nonexempt. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the blade is nonexempt is not wrong.; sent4 & assump2 -> int1: the blade does volatilize.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the blade does not volatilize.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the blade is not nonexempt.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the reporter is not nonexempt but palpable is not correct.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__