the fact that there exists something such that it is not woolen does not hold.
sent1: if the voyeurism does not hound selva and it does not hound waw the abiogenist is not woolen. sent2: the abiogenist is not woolen if the voyeurism does not hound selva and does hound waw. sent3: if the fact that something does not palatalize corded and is not dogmatic does not hold then it palatalize corded. sent4: the logician does backstop Aframomum but it does not palatalize corded if the voyeurism is a velveteen. sent5: if the voyeurism is a velveteen then the logician backstops Aframomum. sent6: if the voyeurism is not a velveteen the fact that it does not hound selva and does not hound waw is not wrong. sent7: the fact that the logician does not palatalize corded and it is not dogmatic is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the voyeurism is a velveteen.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the logician backstops Aframomum and does not palatalize corded.; int1 -> int2: the logician does not palatalize corded.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the logician does palatalize corded is not false if the fact that it does not palatalize corded and is not dogmatic is incorrect.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the logician does palatalize corded.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the voyeurism is not a velveteen.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the voyeurism does not hound selva and it does not hound waw.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: the abiogenist is not woolen.; int8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that it is not woolen does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the voyeurism does not hound selva and it does not hound waw the abiogenist is not woolen. sent2: the abiogenist is not woolen if the voyeurism does not hound selva and does hound waw. sent3: if the fact that something does not palatalize corded and is not dogmatic does not hold then it palatalize corded. sent4: the logician does backstop Aframomum but it does not palatalize corded if the voyeurism is a velveteen. sent5: if the voyeurism is a velveteen then the logician backstops Aframomum. sent6: if the voyeurism is not a velveteen the fact that it does not hound selva and does not hound waw is not wrong. sent7: the fact that the logician does not palatalize corded and it is not dogmatic is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the voyeurism is a velveteen.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the logician backstops Aframomum and does not palatalize corded.; int1 -> int2: the logician does not palatalize corded.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the logician does palatalize corded is not false if the fact that it does not palatalize corded and is not dogmatic is incorrect.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the logician does palatalize corded.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the voyeurism is not a velveteen.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the voyeurism does not hound selva and it does not hound waw.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: the abiogenist is not woolen.; int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__