that there exists something such that if it is a kind of an overhang it is normative is not correct.
sent1: if the bigarade is considerable it does overhang. sent2: there is something such that if it is political then it is unfit. sent3: the fact that that the cuticula is not a permissibility and it is not anamnestic does not hold is not incorrect if it is an overhang. sent4: the fact that the cuticula is a Chamaemelum is right. sent5: that the fact that the cuticula is a permissibility that is non-anamnestic is wrong is true if it is an overhang. sent6: the fact that the locator is not anamnestic and it is not irresponsible is not correct if it rids locator. sent7: the fact that that the cuticula is not a glucosamine but it is a Willis does not hold is correct. sent8: the fact that the fact that the cuticula is non-normative thing that does not book eponym is false is not incorrect. sent9: there is something such that if it is normative then it is a permissibility. sent10: that the cuticula is not anamnestic and it does not quarantine is incorrect if it is a whipper-in. sent11: if that the cuticula is not a permissibility and not anamnestic is not correct then it is normative.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cuticula is a kind of an overhang.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: that the fact that the cuticula is not a kind of a permissibility and is not anamnestic is not incorrect is wrong.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the cuticula is normative.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: if the cuticula is an overhang it is normative.; int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a kind of an overhang it is normative is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bigarade is considerable it does overhang. sent2: there is something such that if it is political then it is unfit. sent3: the fact that that the cuticula is not a permissibility and it is not anamnestic does not hold is not incorrect if it is an overhang. sent4: the fact that the cuticula is a Chamaemelum is right. sent5: that the fact that the cuticula is a permissibility that is non-anamnestic is wrong is true if it is an overhang. sent6: the fact that the locator is not anamnestic and it is not irresponsible is not correct if it rids locator. sent7: the fact that that the cuticula is not a glucosamine but it is a Willis does not hold is correct. sent8: the fact that the fact that the cuticula is non-normative thing that does not book eponym is false is not incorrect. sent9: there is something such that if it is normative then it is a permissibility. sent10: that the cuticula is not anamnestic and it does not quarantine is incorrect if it is a whipper-in. sent11: if that the cuticula is not a permissibility and not anamnestic is not correct then it is normative. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cuticula is a kind of an overhang.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: that the fact that the cuticula is not a kind of a permissibility and is not anamnestic is not incorrect is wrong.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the cuticula is normative.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: if the cuticula is an overhang it is normative.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__