the fact that the flypaper is photometric and it is a stickpin is not correct.
sent1: the Rollerblade is a kind of an incompetent. sent2: that something is not competent but it is not photometric hold if it is not an elegance. sent3: that the ceratopsian is not a kind of a supertanker is true. sent4: if the ceratopsian is not a supertanker then it is not trophoblastic and it is not a kind of a jati. sent5: the flypaper is photometric and a stickpin if the Rollerblade is not photometric. sent6: the ceratopsian is a jati if the Rollerblade is not obligatory. sent7: the Rollerblade does cram. sent8: if an elegance does cram then it is not obligatory. sent9: the flypaper is a stickpin. sent10: the fact that the ceratopsian is non-trophoblastic is correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Rollerblade is a kind of an elegance hold.; assump1 & sent7 -> int1: the Rollerblade is an elegance and does cram.; sent8 -> int2: if the Rollerblade is an elegance and crams it is not obligatory.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Rollerblade is not obligatory.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the ceratopsian is a jati.; sent4 & sent3 -> int5: the ceratopsian is not trophoblastic and it is not a jati.; int5 -> int6: the ceratopsian is not a jati.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the Rollerblade is not an elegance.; sent2 -> int9: the Rollerblade is an incompetent but it is not photometric if it is not an elegance.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the Rollerblade is an incompetent but it is not photometric.; int10 -> int11: the Rollerblade is not photometric.; int11 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the flypaper is photometric and it is a stickpin is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the Rollerblade is a kind of an incompetent. sent2: that something is not competent but it is not photometric hold if it is not an elegance. sent3: that the ceratopsian is not a kind of a supertanker is true. sent4: if the ceratopsian is not a supertanker then it is not trophoblastic and it is not a kind of a jati. sent5: the flypaper is photometric and a stickpin if the Rollerblade is not photometric. sent6: the ceratopsian is a jati if the Rollerblade is not obligatory. sent7: the Rollerblade does cram. sent8: if an elegance does cram then it is not obligatory. sent9: the flypaper is a stickpin. sent10: the fact that the ceratopsian is non-trophoblastic is correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the Rollerblade is a kind of an elegance hold.; assump1 & sent7 -> int1: the Rollerblade is an elegance and does cram.; sent8 -> int2: if the Rollerblade is an elegance and crams it is not obligatory.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Rollerblade is not obligatory.; int3 & sent6 -> int4: the ceratopsian is a jati.; sent4 & sent3 -> int5: the ceratopsian is not trophoblastic and it is not a jati.; int5 -> int6: the ceratopsian is not a jati.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the Rollerblade is not an elegance.; sent2 -> int9: the Rollerblade is an incompetent but it is not photometric if it is not an elegance.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the Rollerblade is an incompetent but it is not photometric.; int10 -> int11: the Rollerblade is not photometric.; int11 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__