the Hegira does not occur and the startling eaglet occurs.
sent1: the consularness occurs. sent2: the fact that the Taoistness but not the Lincolnesqueness happens does not hold. sent3: if the boniness occurs then the fact that the trading but not the cryocautery occurs is false. sent4: if the dropkicking Sporozoa occurs the generativeness but not the pall-mall occurs. sent5: the example results in that the trading occurs but the cryocautery does not occur. sent6: that the example does not occur and the chasse occurs is caused by the compatibleness. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the amending happens or the startling Triassic does not occur or both is right is false the objectification does not occur. sent8: the boskopoidness does not occur. sent9: the boniness occurs. sent10: the Hegira does not occur if the chasse and the example occurs. sent11: the dropkicking jay and the non-bareness occurs. sent12: the separationism does not occur. sent13: if the startling demineralization does not occur that the Hegira does not occur but the startling eaglet happens does not hold. sent14: if the fact that the compatibleness occurs and/or the chasse does not occur is wrong the fact that the updating bullfighter does not occur hold. sent15: the fact that the compatibleness occurs or the chassing does not occur or both is not correct if the example does not occur. sent16: the journey but not the dropkicking holystone occurs. sent17: that not the example but the chassing occurs triggers that the chauvinisticness does not occur. sent18: the startling demineralization does not occur if the consularness occurs but the updating bullfighter does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the example occurs is correct.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the trading occurs and the cryocautery does not occur.; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the trading occurs and the cryocautery does not occur does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the example does not occur.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: that the fact that the compatibleness occurs or the chassing does not occur or both is false is not wrong.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the fact that the updating bullfighter does not occur hold.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the consularness happens but the updating bullfighter does not occur.; int7 & sent18 -> int8: the startling demineralization does not occur.; int8 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the chauvinisticness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the Hegira does not occur and the startling eaglet occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the consularness occurs. sent2: the fact that the Taoistness but not the Lincolnesqueness happens does not hold. sent3: if the boniness occurs then the fact that the trading but not the cryocautery occurs is false. sent4: if the dropkicking Sporozoa occurs the generativeness but not the pall-mall occurs. sent5: the example results in that the trading occurs but the cryocautery does not occur. sent6: that the example does not occur and the chasse occurs is caused by the compatibleness. sent7: if the fact that the fact that the amending happens or the startling Triassic does not occur or both is right is false the objectification does not occur. sent8: the boskopoidness does not occur. sent9: the boniness occurs. sent10: the Hegira does not occur if the chasse and the example occurs. sent11: the dropkicking jay and the non-bareness occurs. sent12: the separationism does not occur. sent13: if the startling demineralization does not occur that the Hegira does not occur but the startling eaglet happens does not hold. sent14: if the fact that the compatibleness occurs and/or the chasse does not occur is wrong the fact that the updating bullfighter does not occur hold. sent15: the fact that the compatibleness occurs or the chassing does not occur or both is not correct if the example does not occur. sent16: the journey but not the dropkicking holystone occurs. sent17: that not the example but the chassing occurs triggers that the chauvinisticness does not occur. sent18: the startling demineralization does not occur if the consularness occurs but the updating bullfighter does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the example occurs is correct.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the trading occurs and the cryocautery does not occur.; sent3 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the trading occurs and the cryocautery does not occur does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the example does not occur.; int4 & sent15 -> int5: that the fact that the compatibleness occurs or the chassing does not occur or both is false is not wrong.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the fact that the updating bullfighter does not occur hold.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the consularness happens but the updating bullfighter does not occur.; int7 & sent18 -> int8: the startling demineralization does not occur.; int8 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__