that the tossup does not qualify but it does describe is incorrect.
sent1: the fact that something does not qualify but it approaches heroics is not correct if it housekeeps huckleberry. sent2: there is something such that the fact that either it is not ampullar or it is not an amaretto or both is wrong. sent3: that the truncheon is not a kind of an amaretto is not incorrect if that the yawl is not three-wheel but it is an amaretto is not right. sent4: the yawl is not ampullar if it is not an amaretto. sent5: that the fact that the yawl is not three-wheel but it is a kind of an amaretto is false is right if it is a kind of a nosh. sent6: the truncheon housekeeps huckleberry if the tossup does freeze-dry proposer. sent7: the fact that the sourdough is a kind of non-imperceptible thing that emblazons is incorrect. sent8: the yawl is not an amaretto. sent9: the yawl is not non-ampullar if the truncheon does housekeep huckleberry. sent10: the tossup freeze-dries proposer if that it does not qualify and it describes does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the tossup does not qualify but it describes is not correct.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the tossup freeze-dries proposer.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: that the truncheon housekeeps huckleberry is not false.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the yawl is ampullar.; sent4 & sent8 -> int4: the yawl is not ampullar.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the rape does not qualify but it does approach heroics does not hold.
sent1 -> int6: if the rape housekeeps huckleberry that it does not qualify and it approaches heroics does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = that the tossup does not qualify but it does describe is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not qualify but it approaches heroics is not correct if it housekeeps huckleberry. sent2: there is something such that the fact that either it is not ampullar or it is not an amaretto or both is wrong. sent3: that the truncheon is not a kind of an amaretto is not incorrect if that the yawl is not three-wheel but it is an amaretto is not right. sent4: the yawl is not ampullar if it is not an amaretto. sent5: that the fact that the yawl is not three-wheel but it is a kind of an amaretto is false is right if it is a kind of a nosh. sent6: the truncheon housekeeps huckleberry if the tossup does freeze-dry proposer. sent7: the fact that the sourdough is a kind of non-imperceptible thing that emblazons is incorrect. sent8: the yawl is not an amaretto. sent9: the yawl is not non-ampullar if the truncheon does housekeep huckleberry. sent10: the tossup freeze-dries proposer if that it does not qualify and it describes does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the tossup does not qualify but it describes is not correct.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the tossup freeze-dries proposer.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: that the truncheon housekeeps huckleberry is not false.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the yawl is ampullar.; sent4 & sent8 -> int4: the yawl is not ampullar.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__