the pogonion is a kind of a screwdriver and is a classicism.
sent1: if the pterosaur is not incongruent that the pogonion is both a screwdriver and a classicism is not true. sent2: if something is a orthicon then it is a kind of a cutback. sent3: something is inalienable but not inelegant if the fact that it is not incongruent is false. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a virtue. sent5: if something is both not a virtue and not a flaw the pterosaur is a orthicon. sent6: the Rolodex is both not a virtue and not a flaw. sent7: if something is inalienable thing that is not inelegant then that it is not a cutback is not false.
sent3 -> int1: if the pterosaur is incongruent then it is a kind of inalienable thing that is not inelegant.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pterosaur is incongruent.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the pterosaur is inalienable but not inelegant.; sent7 -> int3: if the pterosaur is inalienable but it is not inelegant then it is not a cutback.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the pterosaur is not a cutback.; sent2 -> int5: the pterosaur is a cutback if it is a kind of a orthicon.; sent6 -> int6: there exists something such that it is not a virtue and it is not a flaw.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the pterosaur is a orthicon.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the pterosaur is a cutback.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the pterosaur is not incongruent.; int10 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the pogonion is a kind of a screwdriver and is a classicism. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pterosaur is not incongruent that the pogonion is both a screwdriver and a classicism is not true. sent2: if something is a orthicon then it is a kind of a cutback. sent3: something is inalienable but not inelegant if the fact that it is not incongruent is false. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a virtue. sent5: if something is both not a virtue and not a flaw the pterosaur is a orthicon. sent6: the Rolodex is both not a virtue and not a flaw. sent7: if something is inalienable thing that is not inelegant then that it is not a cutback is not false. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: if the pterosaur is incongruent then it is a kind of inalienable thing that is not inelegant.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pterosaur is incongruent.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the pterosaur is inalienable but not inelegant.; sent7 -> int3: if the pterosaur is inalienable but it is not inelegant then it is not a cutback.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the pterosaur is not a cutback.; sent2 -> int5: the pterosaur is a cutback if it is a kind of a orthicon.; sent6 -> int6: there exists something such that it is not a virtue and it is not a flaw.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: the pterosaur is a orthicon.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the pterosaur is a cutback.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: the pterosaur is not incongruent.; int10 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__