the employable does not vaticinate and/or does not riot impacted.
sent1: the fact that the fact that the hooch is a sight that does not sharpen is incorrect is not incorrect. sent2: if the strapless is not a kind of a swan then the blanquillo does not vaticinate and does swan. sent3: that the employable does not vaticinate and/or it does not riot impacted does not hold if the blanquillo does not vaticinate. sent4: the strapless is a sight if the Tenoretic is a kind of a sight. sent5: the sheriff does not vaticinate if the strapless does consult or does not riot impacted or both. sent6: if the blanquillo is a kind of a tattoo that is not a Burt then it is not a kind of a sight. sent7: the strapless does not sight if the fact that it is not a swan and it is not a hegemony is not correct. sent8: if that something does not vaticinate is not incorrect then the fact that it is a trio that sights is false. sent9: if the blanquillo does not sight and it is not a trio the strapless is a kind of a trio. sent10: the employable does not vaticinate or does not riot impacted or both if the strapless is a kind of a trio. sent11: the Tenoretic is a kind of a sight.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the strapless is not a kind of a swan and is not a kind of a hegemony is incorrect.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the strapless is not a kind of a sight.; sent4 & sent11 -> int2: the strapless is a kind of a sight.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the strapless is not a kind of a swan and it is not a hegemony is true.; int4 -> int5: the strapless does not swan.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the blanquillo does not vaticinate and is a swan.; int6 -> int7: the blanquillo does not vaticinate.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the employable does not vaticinate and/or does not riot impacted.
$hypothesis$ = the employable does not vaticinate and/or does not riot impacted. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the hooch is a sight that does not sharpen is incorrect is not incorrect. sent2: if the strapless is not a kind of a swan then the blanquillo does not vaticinate and does swan. sent3: that the employable does not vaticinate and/or it does not riot impacted does not hold if the blanquillo does not vaticinate. sent4: the strapless is a sight if the Tenoretic is a kind of a sight. sent5: the sheriff does not vaticinate if the strapless does consult or does not riot impacted or both. sent6: if the blanquillo is a kind of a tattoo that is not a Burt then it is not a kind of a sight. sent7: the strapless does not sight if the fact that it is not a swan and it is not a hegemony is not correct. sent8: if that something does not vaticinate is not incorrect then the fact that it is a trio that sights is false. sent9: if the blanquillo does not sight and it is not a trio the strapless is a kind of a trio. sent10: the employable does not vaticinate or does not riot impacted or both if the strapless is a kind of a trio. sent11: the Tenoretic is a kind of a sight. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the strapless is not a kind of a swan and is not a kind of a hegemony is incorrect.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the strapless is not a kind of a sight.; sent4 & sent11 -> int2: the strapless is a kind of a sight.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the strapless is not a kind of a swan and it is not a hegemony is true.; int4 -> int5: the strapless does not swan.; int5 & sent2 -> int6: the blanquillo does not vaticinate and is a swan.; int6 -> int7: the blanquillo does not vaticinate.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__