the fact that there is something such that it mucks or is a corrigendum or both does not hold.
sent1: the quarterstaff either mucks or is impious or both. sent2: if something does muck it is contemptible. sent3: the fact that the quarterstaff is a kind of a corrigendum is correct. sent4: either the Navaho is a kind of a corrigendum or it impinges dropping or both. sent5: the quarterstaff does stave minimization. sent6: the quarterstaff does muck and is a kind of a corrigendum if it is not a still. sent7: either something is vitreous or it does stave minimization or both. sent8: something is not a still if it is not a kind of a thoroughfare.
sent3 -> int1: the quarterstaff mucks or is a corrigendum or both.; int1 -> hypothesis;
that the quarterstaff is not non-contemptible is not wrong.
sent2 -> int2: the quarterstaff is contemptible if it does muck.; sent8 -> int3: if the quarterstaff is not a thoroughfare that it is not a kind of a still is not wrong.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that it mucks or is a corrigendum or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the quarterstaff either mucks or is impious or both. sent2: if something does muck it is contemptible. sent3: the fact that the quarterstaff is a kind of a corrigendum is correct. sent4: either the Navaho is a kind of a corrigendum or it impinges dropping or both. sent5: the quarterstaff does stave minimization. sent6: the quarterstaff does muck and is a kind of a corrigendum if it is not a still. sent7: either something is vitreous or it does stave minimization or both. sent8: something is not a still if it is not a kind of a thoroughfare. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: the quarterstaff mucks or is a corrigendum or both.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__