the ruga is not valent or it is undulatory or both.
sent1: the ruga is valent. sent2: if the fact that something does summarize protamine and is not a kind of a eburnation hold it is incorrigible. sent3: everything does not summarize protamine and is not a eburnation. sent4: the ruga is valent if the protamine is incorrigible. sent5: if the protamine does not summarize protamine and is a kind of a eburnation then it is incorrigible. sent6: if something that is not a eburnation is not incorrigible it is valent. sent7: that either the ruga is not valent or it is undulatory or both is not correct if the protamine is incorrigible. sent8: if something does not summarize protamine and is a eburnation it is incorrigible. sent9: if something that does not summarize protamine is not a eburnation then it is incorrigible. sent10: if something is not valent but it is undulatory it is not incorrigible. sent11: the protamine is incorrigible if it summarizes protamine and is not a kind of a eburnation. sent12: something is both not valent and undulatory if it is not an amino.
sent3 -> int1: the protamine does not summarize protamine and is not a eburnation.; sent9 -> int2: if the protamine does not summarize protamine and it is not a eburnation then it is incorrigible.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the protamine is incorrigible.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
everything is not a worldliness and is not a kind of a protectorship.
sent10 -> int4: the ruga is not incorrigible if it is not valent and not non-undulatory.; sent12 -> int5: the marrow is not valent but it is undulatory if it is not amino.;
$hypothesis$ = the ruga is not valent or it is undulatory or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the ruga is valent. sent2: if the fact that something does summarize protamine and is not a kind of a eburnation hold it is incorrigible. sent3: everything does not summarize protamine and is not a eburnation. sent4: the ruga is valent if the protamine is incorrigible. sent5: if the protamine does not summarize protamine and is a kind of a eburnation then it is incorrigible. sent6: if something that is not a eburnation is not incorrigible it is valent. sent7: that either the ruga is not valent or it is undulatory or both is not correct if the protamine is incorrigible. sent8: if something does not summarize protamine and is a eburnation it is incorrigible. sent9: if something that does not summarize protamine is not a eburnation then it is incorrigible. sent10: if something is not valent but it is undulatory it is not incorrigible. sent11: the protamine is incorrigible if it summarizes protamine and is not a kind of a eburnation. sent12: something is both not valent and undulatory if it is not an amino. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> int1: the protamine does not summarize protamine and is not a eburnation.; sent9 -> int2: if the protamine does not summarize protamine and it is not a eburnation then it is incorrigible.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the protamine is incorrigible.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__