that the fact that the poi does not dance prolegomenon and it is not noncombinative hold is not correct.
sent1: the poi is not semiautobiographical if the fact that it does not spectate and is a sublimation does not hold. sent2: there is something such that it is not benignant. sent3: if something is not benignant that the poi is not a kind of a tailorbird and it is not noncombinative is correct. sent4: if the poi dances prolegomenon it is not unacquisitive. sent5: the Ovral is unacquisitive if the barbecue spectates. sent6: that everything is semiautobiographical hold. sent7: the fact that if the barbecue is not semiautobiographical then the barbecue is a sublimation and it spectates is true. sent8: if the poi is not unacquisitive the fact that it does not spectate and it is a sublimation is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poi does dance prolegomenon.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the poi is not unacquisitive.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the poi does not spectate and is a kind of a sublimation does not hold.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the poi is not semiautobiographical.; sent6 -> int4: the poi is semiautobiographical.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the poi does not dance prolegomenon.; sent2 & sent3 -> int7: the poi is both not a tailorbird and not noncombinative.; int7 -> int8: the poi is not noncombinative.; int6 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the fact that the poi does not dance prolegomenon and is not noncombinative hold is incorrect.
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the poi does not dance prolegomenon and it is not noncombinative hold is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the poi is not semiautobiographical if the fact that it does not spectate and is a sublimation does not hold. sent2: there is something such that it is not benignant. sent3: if something is not benignant that the poi is not a kind of a tailorbird and it is not noncombinative is correct. sent4: if the poi dances prolegomenon it is not unacquisitive. sent5: the Ovral is unacquisitive if the barbecue spectates. sent6: that everything is semiautobiographical hold. sent7: the fact that if the barbecue is not semiautobiographical then the barbecue is a sublimation and it spectates is true. sent8: if the poi is not unacquisitive the fact that it does not spectate and it is a sublimation is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the poi does dance prolegomenon.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the poi is not unacquisitive.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the poi does not spectate and is a kind of a sublimation does not hold.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the poi is not semiautobiographical.; sent6 -> int4: the poi is semiautobiographical.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the poi does not dance prolegomenon.; sent2 & sent3 -> int7: the poi is both not a tailorbird and not noncombinative.; int7 -> int8: the poi is not noncombinative.; int6 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__