that the jazzman does syllogize comprehensiveness or does observe or both is not wrong.
sent1: the fact that that either something does syllogize comprehensiveness or it observes or both is not wrong is not correct if it is not a permafrost. sent2: if there exists something such that it is either not a rodent or a venturer or both the vertical is not a pet. sent3: the vertical is a pet and is systolic. sent4: if that something is not a kind of a rodent and/or is a venturer is not right then it is not a kind of a permafrost.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the jazzman is not a rodent and/or is a kind of a venturer.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that either it is not a kind of a rodent or it is a venturer or both.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the vertical does not pet.; sent3 -> int3: the vertical is a pet.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the jazzman is not a kind of a rodent or is a venturer or both is wrong.; sent4 -> int6: if that the jazzman is not a rodent and/or it is a kind of a venturer does not hold it is not a permafrost.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the jazzman is not a permafrost.; sent1 -> int8: the fact that the jazzman either does syllogize comprehensiveness or does observe or both is incorrect if it is not a permafrost.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the jazzman does syllogize comprehensiveness or does observe or both is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that that either something does syllogize comprehensiveness or it observes or both is not wrong is not correct if it is not a permafrost. sent2: if there exists something such that it is either not a rodent or a venturer or both the vertical is not a pet. sent3: the vertical is a pet and is systolic. sent4: if that something is not a kind of a rodent and/or is a venturer is not right then it is not a kind of a permafrost. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the jazzman is not a rodent and/or is a kind of a venturer.; assump1 -> int1: there is something such that either it is not a kind of a rodent or it is a venturer or both.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the vertical does not pet.; sent3 -> int3: the vertical is a pet.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the jazzman is not a kind of a rodent or is a venturer or both is wrong.; sent4 -> int6: if that the jazzman is not a rodent and/or it is a kind of a venturer does not hold it is not a permafrost.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the jazzman is not a permafrost.; sent1 -> int8: the fact that the jazzman either does syllogize comprehensiveness or does observe or both is incorrect if it is not a permafrost.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__