the cyber-terrorism does not occur.
sent1: if the vegetalness happens the cyber-terrorism does not occur. sent2: the cyber-terrorism does not occur if the vegetalness occurs and/or the downtick happens. sent3: the cyber-terrorism occurs but the vegetalness does not occur if the propping basketball happens. sent4: if the spectating showgirl does not occur then both the normalness and the non-braveness occurs. sent5: the vegetalness occurs if the fact that the non-vegetalness and the non-intraventricularness occurs is not true. sent6: the volunteering occurs if that the propping basketball does not occur is not wrong. sent7: the opening happens. sent8: the spectating con does not occur. sent9: the volunteering happens. sent10: the propping basketball does not occur. sent11: that both the thrombosing cine-camera and the weaning Cynocephalus occurs is not right if the dirtiness does not occur. sent12: that the cyber-terrorism occurs but the downtick does not occur is brought about by that the vegetalness occurs. sent13: the fact that if the downtick does not occur that the volunteer occurs and the controversy does not occur does not hold is true. sent14: if the intraventricularness happens then the propping basketball happens. sent15: that the propping basketball does not occur yields that the volunteering but not the controversy occurs. sent16: the propping basketball is triggered by that the thrombosing Pyrrhus happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the downtick does not occur.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: that the volunteering but not the controversy happens does not hold.; sent15 & sent10 -> int2: the volunteering occurs but the controversy does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the downtick happens.; int4 -> int5: the vegetalness occurs and/or the downtick occurs.; int5 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the invigorating happens.
$hypothesis$ = the cyber-terrorism does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the vegetalness happens the cyber-terrorism does not occur. sent2: the cyber-terrorism does not occur if the vegetalness occurs and/or the downtick happens. sent3: the cyber-terrorism occurs but the vegetalness does not occur if the propping basketball happens. sent4: if the spectating showgirl does not occur then both the normalness and the non-braveness occurs. sent5: the vegetalness occurs if the fact that the non-vegetalness and the non-intraventricularness occurs is not true. sent6: the volunteering occurs if that the propping basketball does not occur is not wrong. sent7: the opening happens. sent8: the spectating con does not occur. sent9: the volunteering happens. sent10: the propping basketball does not occur. sent11: that both the thrombosing cine-camera and the weaning Cynocephalus occurs is not right if the dirtiness does not occur. sent12: that the cyber-terrorism occurs but the downtick does not occur is brought about by that the vegetalness occurs. sent13: the fact that if the downtick does not occur that the volunteer occurs and the controversy does not occur does not hold is true. sent14: if the intraventricularness happens then the propping basketball happens. sent15: that the propping basketball does not occur yields that the volunteering but not the controversy occurs. sent16: the propping basketball is triggered by that the thrombosing Pyrrhus happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the downtick does not occur.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: that the volunteering but not the controversy happens does not hold.; sent15 & sent10 -> int2: the volunteering occurs but the controversy does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the downtick happens.; int4 -> int5: the vegetalness occurs and/or the downtick occurs.; int5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__