the fact that the sourball is antibiotic is incorrect.
sent1: if that the caterer is not a dowdy and it is not expendable is not true the sub-assembly does not drain zootoxin. sent2: the dika does not discard ruggedness if that it is a arethusa and/or does penetrate is incorrect. sent3: if the sub-assembly is not a crawl and/or does not drain zootoxin then the dika discards ruggedness. sent4: the fact that the dika is a arethusa and/or it penetrates is wrong if the defibrillator does not bank. sent5: the dika is not a arethusa. sent6: the defibrillator is not a bank. sent7: if that the sub-assembly does bank or is expendable or both is not true it does not crawl. sent8: that the caterer is a dowdy but it is not expendable does not hold if the sourball is not an antibiotic. sent9: if that the sourball is not a kind of an antibiotic is correct then the fact that that the caterer is not a kind of a dowdy and it is not expendable is right is false. sent10: either the dika does not crawl or it does not discard ruggedness or both.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sourball is not a kind of an antibiotic.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the caterer is not a dowdy and it is not expendable is false.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the sub-assembly does not drain zootoxin.; int2 -> int3: either the sub-assembly is not a kind of a crawl or it does not drain zootoxin or both.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the dika discards ruggedness.; sent4 & sent6 -> int5: that the dika is a kind of a arethusa and/or does penetrate is incorrect.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the dika does not discard ruggedness.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the sourball is antibiotic is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the caterer is not a dowdy and it is not expendable is not true the sub-assembly does not drain zootoxin. sent2: the dika does not discard ruggedness if that it is a arethusa and/or does penetrate is incorrect. sent3: if the sub-assembly is not a crawl and/or does not drain zootoxin then the dika discards ruggedness. sent4: the fact that the dika is a arethusa and/or it penetrates is wrong if the defibrillator does not bank. sent5: the dika is not a arethusa. sent6: the defibrillator is not a bank. sent7: if that the sub-assembly does bank or is expendable or both is not true it does not crawl. sent8: that the caterer is a dowdy but it is not expendable does not hold if the sourball is not an antibiotic. sent9: if that the sourball is not a kind of an antibiotic is correct then the fact that that the caterer is not a kind of a dowdy and it is not expendable is right is false. sent10: either the dika does not crawl or it does not discard ruggedness or both. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sourball is not a kind of an antibiotic.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the caterer is not a dowdy and it is not expendable is false.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the sub-assembly does not drain zootoxin.; int2 -> int3: either the sub-assembly is not a kind of a crawl or it does not drain zootoxin or both.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: the dika discards ruggedness.; sent4 & sent6 -> int5: that the dika is a kind of a arethusa and/or does penetrate is incorrect.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the dika does not discard ruggedness.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__