that there exists something such that that it is not an abuse and is bidirectional is wrong is not true.
sent1: something is extensive if it does pestle levitation. sent2: the rump is a dinghy if it is both not an abuse and bidirectional. sent3: if the rump is a dinghy then it pestles levitation. sent4: that the levitation is a dinghy and does stuff Algol does not hold. sent5: the rump is bidirectional. sent6: the fact that the rump is not a macaroon but it does stuff cookbook is false. sent7: the rump does not narrow babka. sent8: if the rump is a macaroon or it does not narrow fashioned or both then the fact that it is not extensive is correct. sent9: the rump is a macaroon if the fact that it is not a macaroon and it stuffs cookbook is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rump does not abuse and is bidirectional.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the rump is a dinghy.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the rump pestles levitation.; sent1 -> int3: the rump is extensive if it pestles levitation.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the rump is extensive.; sent9 & sent6 -> int5: that the rump is a macaroon is correct.; int5 -> int6: the rump either is a macaroon or does not narrow fashioned or both.; sent8 & int6 -> int7: the rump is not extensive.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the rump is not an abuse but it is bidirectional does not hold.; int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that that it is not an abuse and is bidirectional is wrong is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: something is extensive if it does pestle levitation. sent2: the rump is a dinghy if it is both not an abuse and bidirectional. sent3: if the rump is a dinghy then it pestles levitation. sent4: that the levitation is a dinghy and does stuff Algol does not hold. sent5: the rump is bidirectional. sent6: the fact that the rump is not a macaroon but it does stuff cookbook is false. sent7: the rump does not narrow babka. sent8: if the rump is a macaroon or it does not narrow fashioned or both then the fact that it is not extensive is correct. sent9: the rump is a macaroon if the fact that it is not a macaroon and it stuffs cookbook is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rump does not abuse and is bidirectional.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the rump is a dinghy.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the rump pestles levitation.; sent1 -> int3: the rump is extensive if it pestles levitation.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the rump is extensive.; sent9 & sent6 -> int5: that the rump is a macaroon is correct.; int5 -> int6: the rump either is a macaroon or does not narrow fashioned or both.; sent8 & int6 -> int7: the rump is not extensive.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the rump is not an abuse but it is bidirectional does not hold.; int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__