the fact that the epentheticness triggers that the remuneration but not the stinking happens is not true.
sent1: the epentheticness occurs if the swiz happens and/or the sublingualness occurs. sent2: the swiz does not occur if that not the epentheticness but the swiz occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the glialness happens is not incorrect. sent4: if the sublingualness does not occur the fact that the remuneration happens is correct. sent5: if the sublingualness does not occur the remuneration but not the stinking occurs. sent6: if the epentheticness occurs the remuneration occurs. sent7: if the resoluteness happens and/or the three-dimensionalness occurs then the toasting does not occur. sent8: if either the swiz does not occur or the sublingualness does not occur or both then the vexing Iliad does not occur. sent9: the non-epentheticness is caused by that the swiz happens and/or that the sublingualness happens. sent10: the cross-modalness does not occur. sent11: if the working walkie-talkie does not occur then the pleaching calculation occurs and the legislatorship does not occur. sent12: if the vexing campanile occurs and/or the upper-classness happens the extradition does not occur. sent13: the remuneration happens and the stinking occurs if the epentheticness occurs. sent14: the remuneration occurs. sent15: if the swiz happens the epentheticness does not occur. sent16: that the spamming does not occur is brought about by the spiccato and/or that the inactivation happens. sent17: the mucopurulentness does not occur. sent18: the recession happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the epentheticness occurs is right.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the sublingualness occurs is not wrong.; assump2 -> int1: the swiz or the sublingualness or both happens.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the epentheticness does not occur.; assump1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the sublingualness does not occur is true.; sent5 & int4 -> int5: the remuneration but not the stinking occurs.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
that the vexing Iliad does not occur is not wrong.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the epentheticness triggers that the remuneration but not the stinking happens is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the epentheticness occurs if the swiz happens and/or the sublingualness occurs. sent2: the swiz does not occur if that not the epentheticness but the swiz occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the glialness happens is not incorrect. sent4: if the sublingualness does not occur the fact that the remuneration happens is correct. sent5: if the sublingualness does not occur the remuneration but not the stinking occurs. sent6: if the epentheticness occurs the remuneration occurs. sent7: if the resoluteness happens and/or the three-dimensionalness occurs then the toasting does not occur. sent8: if either the swiz does not occur or the sublingualness does not occur or both then the vexing Iliad does not occur. sent9: the non-epentheticness is caused by that the swiz happens and/or that the sublingualness happens. sent10: the cross-modalness does not occur. sent11: if the working walkie-talkie does not occur then the pleaching calculation occurs and the legislatorship does not occur. sent12: if the vexing campanile occurs and/or the upper-classness happens the extradition does not occur. sent13: the remuneration happens and the stinking occurs if the epentheticness occurs. sent14: the remuneration occurs. sent15: if the swiz happens the epentheticness does not occur. sent16: that the spamming does not occur is brought about by the spiccato and/or that the inactivation happens. sent17: the mucopurulentness does not occur. sent18: the recession happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the epentheticness occurs is right.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the sublingualness occurs is not wrong.; assump2 -> int1: the swiz or the sublingualness or both happens.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the epentheticness does not occur.; assump1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the sublingualness does not occur is true.; sent5 & int4 -> int5: the remuneration but not the stinking occurs.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__