the disruption does not occur and the carcinomatousness does not occur.
sent1: if the discriminatoriness does not occur the impress does not occur. sent2: the licentiousness is prevented by that not the stroking but the cross-linking occurs. sent3: the licentiousness occurs. sent4: if that that the chimericalness happens and/or the coping disengagement happens is not incorrect is wrong then the carcinomatousness does not occur. sent5: that the disruption does not occur and the carcinomatousness does not occur is not right if the licentiousness does not occur. sent6: if the discriminatoriness does not occur the stroke and the cross-linking happens. sent7: that that both the red-eyeing and the caroling democracy happens is not right is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the non-chimericalness and/or the coping disengagement happens is not true the carcinomatousness does not occur. sent9: the stroking does not occur if not the discriminatoriness but the impressing happens. sent10: the impressing does not occur if the fact that the stroking happens and the discriminatoriness happens is false. sent11: the low-techness occurs. sent12: the impress occurs. sent13: that either the non-chimericalness or the coping disengagement or both occurs does not hold if the lurching scientist happens. sent14: the supervision happens. sent15: the fact that the impressing does not occur but the carcinomatousness occurs is not true if the chimericalness does not occur. sent16: if the licentiousness does not occur the caroling Frankfurt does not occur and the coping boulder does not occur. sent17: the cross-link does not occur if the licentiousness and the disruption happens. sent18: both the lurching scientist and the supervision occurs. sent19: if the mensuralness occurs then the idealization does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the disruption happens.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the licentiousness occurs and the disruption occurs.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the cross-linking does not occur.; sent18 -> int3: the fact that the lurching scientist occurs is not false.; sent13 & int3 -> int4: that the non-chimericalness and/or the coping disengagement occurs is false.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the carcinomatousness does not occur.;
the fact that the disruption does not occur and the carcinomatousness does not occur is not correct.
$hypothesis$ = the disruption does not occur and the carcinomatousness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the discriminatoriness does not occur the impress does not occur. sent2: the licentiousness is prevented by that not the stroking but the cross-linking occurs. sent3: the licentiousness occurs. sent4: if that that the chimericalness happens and/or the coping disengagement happens is not incorrect is wrong then the carcinomatousness does not occur. sent5: that the disruption does not occur and the carcinomatousness does not occur is not right if the licentiousness does not occur. sent6: if the discriminatoriness does not occur the stroke and the cross-linking happens. sent7: that that both the red-eyeing and the caroling democracy happens is not right is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that the non-chimericalness and/or the coping disengagement happens is not true the carcinomatousness does not occur. sent9: the stroking does not occur if not the discriminatoriness but the impressing happens. sent10: the impressing does not occur if the fact that the stroking happens and the discriminatoriness happens is false. sent11: the low-techness occurs. sent12: the impress occurs. sent13: that either the non-chimericalness or the coping disengagement or both occurs does not hold if the lurching scientist happens. sent14: the supervision happens. sent15: the fact that the impressing does not occur but the carcinomatousness occurs is not true if the chimericalness does not occur. sent16: if the licentiousness does not occur the caroling Frankfurt does not occur and the coping boulder does not occur. sent17: the cross-link does not occur if the licentiousness and the disruption happens. sent18: both the lurching scientist and the supervision occurs. sent19: if the mensuralness occurs then the idealization does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the disruption happens.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the licentiousness occurs and the disruption occurs.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the cross-linking does not occur.; sent18 -> int3: the fact that the lurching scientist occurs is not false.; sent13 & int3 -> int4: that the non-chimericalness and/or the coping disengagement occurs is false.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the carcinomatousness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__