not the bigamy but the toning happens.
sent1: the beholding Pasteur and/or the unwrapping occurs. sent2: that not the enfranchisement but the reporting eightieth happens is caused by that the reporting Pasiphae does not occur. sent3: the enfranchisement and the reporting Pasiphae happens. sent4: the beholding cacique does not occur if the reporting eightieth happens. sent5: the abstraction occurs. sent6: that the reporting commonality happens is triggered by that the beholding combed occurs. sent7: the fact that the beholding cacique happens is not wrong if the reporting commonality happens. sent8: that the crystallineness does not occur causes that the tone occurs and the abstraction occurs. sent9: that the beholding cacique does not occur and the reporting commonality occurs is wrong if the enfranchisement does not occur. sent10: the beholding combed is caused by the bigamy. sent11: if the extrinsicness occurs then the fact that the crystallineness does not occur or the abstraction does not occur or both does not hold. sent12: the crystallineness does not occur. sent13: if the enfranchisement and/or the reporting eightieth occurs the beholding cacique does not occur. sent14: the distention and/or the tortiousness happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bigamy happens is right.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the beholding combed occurs.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the reporting commonality happens.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the beholding cacique happens.; sent3 -> int4: the enfranchisement occurs.; int4 -> int5: either the enfranchisement occurs or the reporting eightieth occurs or both.; sent13 & int5 -> int6: the beholding cacique does not occur.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the bigamy does not occur.; sent8 & sent12 -> int9: the tone happens and the abstraction occurs.; int9 -> int10: that the toning occurs is not wrong.; int8 & int10 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the bigamy does not occur but the tone occurs is wrong.
$hypothesis$ = not the bigamy but the toning happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the beholding Pasteur and/or the unwrapping occurs. sent2: that not the enfranchisement but the reporting eightieth happens is caused by that the reporting Pasiphae does not occur. sent3: the enfranchisement and the reporting Pasiphae happens. sent4: the beholding cacique does not occur if the reporting eightieth happens. sent5: the abstraction occurs. sent6: that the reporting commonality happens is triggered by that the beholding combed occurs. sent7: the fact that the beholding cacique happens is not wrong if the reporting commonality happens. sent8: that the crystallineness does not occur causes that the tone occurs and the abstraction occurs. sent9: that the beholding cacique does not occur and the reporting commonality occurs is wrong if the enfranchisement does not occur. sent10: the beholding combed is caused by the bigamy. sent11: if the extrinsicness occurs then the fact that the crystallineness does not occur or the abstraction does not occur or both does not hold. sent12: the crystallineness does not occur. sent13: if the enfranchisement and/or the reporting eightieth occurs the beholding cacique does not occur. sent14: the distention and/or the tortiousness happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bigamy happens is right.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the beholding combed occurs.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the reporting commonality happens.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the beholding cacique happens.; sent3 -> int4: the enfranchisement occurs.; int4 -> int5: either the enfranchisement occurs or the reporting eightieth occurs or both.; sent13 & int5 -> int6: the beholding cacique does not occur.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the bigamy does not occur.; sent8 & sent12 -> int9: the tone happens and the abstraction occurs.; int9 -> int10: that the toning occurs is not wrong.; int8 & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__