the fact that the exterminator is a stomp is not false.
sent1: if the checker is a kind of a bola then the houseguest is not a stomp but comprehensive. sent2: something is a stomp if it does churn liberalism. sent3: the houseguest is a kind of a bola. sent4: the checker is noncomprehensive if the houseguest is a kind of a bola. sent5: if the houseguest does not stomp and is not noncomprehensive the exterminator is not a stomp. sent6: if the checker is noncomprehensive the exterminator does churn liberalism.
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the checker is noncomprehensive.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the exterminator does churn liberalism.; sent2 -> int3: if the exterminator churns liberalism it stomps.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;
the exterminator is not a stomp.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the exterminator is a stomp is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the checker is a kind of a bola then the houseguest is not a stomp but comprehensive. sent2: something is a stomp if it does churn liberalism. sent3: the houseguest is a kind of a bola. sent4: the checker is noncomprehensive if the houseguest is a kind of a bola. sent5: if the houseguest does not stomp and is not noncomprehensive the exterminator is not a stomp. sent6: if the checker is noncomprehensive the exterminator does churn liberalism. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the checker is noncomprehensive.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the exterminator does churn liberalism.; sent2 -> int3: if the exterminator churns liberalism it stomps.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__