the fact that there is something such that if it is brisant it is not consolable is not true.
sent1: the fact that the schrod does not disguise concern is correct. sent2: there is something such that if it is brisant then it is consolable. sent3: the fact that the schrod scintillates and is not a Chemakuan is not correct if it does not disguise concern. sent4: if something that is brisant is exaugural it is inconsolable. sent5: The fact that the concern does not disguise schrod is correct. sent6: if something that is brisant is exaugural then it is consolable. sent7: the fact that the crewman is exaugural is true if there is something such that that it scintillates and is not a Chemakuan is incorrect.
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the schrod does scintillate and is not a Chemakuan is false.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does scintillate and is not a Chemakuan does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the crewman is exaugural.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the crewman is brisant.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the crewman is both brisant and exaugural.; sent4 -> int5: if the crewman is a kind of brisant thing that is exaugural that it is not consolable is not false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the crewman is not consolable.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the crewman is not consolable if that it is brisant is correct.; int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is brisant it is not consolable is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the schrod does not disguise concern is correct. sent2: there is something such that if it is brisant then it is consolable. sent3: the fact that the schrod scintillates and is not a Chemakuan is not correct if it does not disguise concern. sent4: if something that is brisant is exaugural it is inconsolable. sent5: The fact that the concern does not disguise schrod is correct. sent6: if something that is brisant is exaugural then it is consolable. sent7: the fact that the crewman is exaugural is true if there is something such that that it scintillates and is not a Chemakuan is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the fact that the schrod does scintillate and is not a Chemakuan is false.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it does scintillate and is not a Chemakuan does not hold.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the crewman is exaugural.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the crewman is brisant.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: the crewman is both brisant and exaugural.; sent4 -> int5: if the crewman is a kind of brisant thing that is exaugural that it is not consolable is not false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the crewman is not consolable.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the crewman is not consolable if that it is brisant is correct.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__