that that the dash-pot does not ventilate windstorm but it is a cruller is not correct if the wayside is not a kind of an endocrine is incorrect.
sent1: the aircrewman is dishonest if the dash-pot is a kind of a irredentist. sent2: if the aircrewman is not honest then the fact that the wayside does not ventilate windstorm and it is not a cruller does not hold. sent3: if the aircrewman does not ventilate windstorm that the dash-pot does not ventilate windstorm but it is a cruller is not true. sent4: if there exists something such that it does ventilate torr and it is not a kind of an endocrine then that the aircrewman does not ventilate windstorm is not incorrect. sent5: the fact that something does not ventilate torr and does accelerate tetralogy is not correct if it is a kind of an endocrine. sent6: the wayside does accelerate tetralogy and it does ventilate torr.
sent6 -> int1: the wayside does ventilate torr.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wayside is not a kind of an endocrine.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the wayside ventilates torr and is not an endocrine.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it does ventilate torr and it is not endocrine.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the aircrewman does not ventilate windstorm.; sent3 & int4 -> int5: that the dash-pot does not ventilate windstorm and is a kind of a cruller is wrong.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the dye does not accelerate tetralogy.
sent5 -> int6: if the dye is an endocrine then that it does not ventilate torr and accelerates tetralogy is not right.;
$hypothesis$ = that that the dash-pot does not ventilate windstorm but it is a cruller is not correct if the wayside is not a kind of an endocrine is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the aircrewman is dishonest if the dash-pot is a kind of a irredentist. sent2: if the aircrewman is not honest then the fact that the wayside does not ventilate windstorm and it is not a cruller does not hold. sent3: if the aircrewman does not ventilate windstorm that the dash-pot does not ventilate windstorm but it is a cruller is not true. sent4: if there exists something such that it does ventilate torr and it is not a kind of an endocrine then that the aircrewman does not ventilate windstorm is not incorrect. sent5: the fact that something does not ventilate torr and does accelerate tetralogy is not correct if it is a kind of an endocrine. sent6: the wayside does accelerate tetralogy and it does ventilate torr. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: the wayside does ventilate torr.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wayside is not a kind of an endocrine.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the wayside ventilates torr and is not an endocrine.; int2 -> int3: there exists something such that it does ventilate torr and it is not endocrine.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the aircrewman does not ventilate windstorm.; sent3 & int4 -> int5: that the dash-pot does not ventilate windstorm and is a kind of a cruller is wrong.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__