the fricassee does not overbear but it is a flesh.
sent1: the darky either is scalic or does not hunger professional or both. sent2: if the fact that the darky does not hunger professional is correct then the cardholder is a gizzard. sent3: the fact that something does overbear but it is scientific is not true if it is a gizzard. sent4: if that the cardholder does not overbear is not false then the fact that the fricassee does not overbear but it is a kind of a flesh does not hold. sent5: if the darky is scalic then the cardholder is a kind of a gizzard. sent6: the cardholder is not unscientific if the lawyer does not hunger defendant and is categorical. sent7: the lawyer does not hunger defendant but it is categorical.
sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the cardholder is scientific.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cardholder overbears.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the cardholder does overbear but it is not unscientific.; sent3 -> int3: if the cardholder is a gizzard then that it does overbear and is not unscientific is wrong.; sent1 & sent5 & sent2 -> int4: the cardholder is a gizzard.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the cardholder does overbear but it is not unscientific does not hold.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the cardholder does not overbear.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fricassee does not overbear but it is a flesh. ; $context$ = sent1: the darky either is scalic or does not hunger professional or both. sent2: if the fact that the darky does not hunger professional is correct then the cardholder is a gizzard. sent3: the fact that something does overbear but it is scientific is not true if it is a gizzard. sent4: if that the cardholder does not overbear is not false then the fact that the fricassee does not overbear but it is a kind of a flesh does not hold. sent5: if the darky is scalic then the cardholder is a kind of a gizzard. sent6: the cardholder is not unscientific if the lawyer does not hunger defendant and is categorical. sent7: the lawyer does not hunger defendant but it is categorical. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent7 -> int1: the cardholder is scientific.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cardholder overbears.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the cardholder does overbear but it is not unscientific.; sent3 -> int3: if the cardholder is a gizzard then that it does overbear and is not unscientific is wrong.; sent1 & sent5 & sent2 -> int4: the cardholder is a gizzard.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the cardholder does overbear but it is not unscientific does not hold.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the cardholder does not overbear.; int7 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__