the fact that the neurolinguist does not color unemployment and is not antipollution is incorrect.
sent1: the hypertonicity is not non-depressant if either it is not a porcelain or it is antipollution or both. sent2: the fact that the control is antipollution is not incorrect if the fact that it is depressant is correct. sent3: if something does define then it does color melancholic or it is not depressant or both. sent4: that the neurolinguist does not color unemployment and is not antipollution is incorrect if the hypertonicity is not antipollution. sent5: something is a porcelain if it is antipollution. sent6: if something is a porcelain then that it is a kind of non-leaky thing that is not rationalistic is not true. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not burrlike and it is not leaky is not right the sial defines. sent8: that the sial does color melancholic or it is non-depressant or both is not correct if the hypertonicity is non-depressant. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-burrlike thing that is not leaky is wrong. sent10: there is something such that that it is not burrlike and it is leaky is not true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hypertonicity is antipollution.; assump1 -> int1: the hypertonicity is not a kind of a porcelain and/or it is antipollution.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the hypertonicity is depressant.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: that either the sial colors melancholic or it is not depressant or both is wrong.; sent3 -> int4: if the sial defines then it does color melancholic or is not depressant or both.; sent9 & sent7 -> int5: that the sial defines is correct.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the sial does color melancholic and/or is not depressant.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the hypertonicity is not antipollution.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the control is not leaky and not rationalistic does not hold.
sent6 -> int9: the fact that the control is not leaky and it is not rationalistic does not hold if it is a kind of a porcelain.; sent5 -> int10: the control is a porcelain if it is antipollution.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the neurolinguist does not color unemployment and is not antipollution is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the hypertonicity is not non-depressant if either it is not a porcelain or it is antipollution or both. sent2: the fact that the control is antipollution is not incorrect if the fact that it is depressant is correct. sent3: if something does define then it does color melancholic or it is not depressant or both. sent4: that the neurolinguist does not color unemployment and is not antipollution is incorrect if the hypertonicity is not antipollution. sent5: something is a porcelain if it is antipollution. sent6: if something is a porcelain then that it is a kind of non-leaky thing that is not rationalistic is not true. sent7: if there is something such that that it is not burrlike and it is not leaky is not right the sial defines. sent8: that the sial does color melancholic or it is non-depressant or both is not correct if the hypertonicity is non-depressant. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-burrlike thing that is not leaky is wrong. sent10: there is something such that that it is not burrlike and it is leaky is not true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hypertonicity is antipollution.; assump1 -> int1: the hypertonicity is not a kind of a porcelain and/or it is antipollution.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the hypertonicity is depressant.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: that either the sial colors melancholic or it is not depressant or both is wrong.; sent3 -> int4: if the sial defines then it does color melancholic or is not depressant or both.; sent9 & sent7 -> int5: that the sial defines is correct.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the sial does color melancholic and/or is not depressant.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the hypertonicity is not antipollution.; int8 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__