that that the counter-sabotage happens brings about that the sensationalness but not the proconsulship occurs is false.
sent1: the blueing Iseult occurs. sent2: the blueing peasantry occurs. sent3: that the interjecting occurs is caused by that the wrestling rewarding occurs. sent4: the sensationalness occurs. sent5: that the seigniory occurs leads to the unbrokenness. sent6: the according happens. sent7: the speleology happens and/or the describing happens. sent8: the saluting occurs if the describing happens. sent9: that the bordering occurs is prevented by that the Zionist and the hierarchicalness happens. sent10: that the saluting happens and the counter-sabotage happens prevents that the proconsulship occurs. sent11: if the fact that the speleology occurs is true then the fact that the saluting occurs is not wrong. sent12: if the bordering happens then the rope-a-dope happens.
sent7 & sent11 & sent8 -> int1: the saluting happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the counter-sabotage occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the saluting and the counter-sabotage occurs.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the proconsulship does not occur.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the sensationalness but not the proconsulship happens.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that that the counter-sabotage happens brings about that the sensationalness but not the proconsulship occurs is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the blueing Iseult occurs. sent2: the blueing peasantry occurs. sent3: that the interjecting occurs is caused by that the wrestling rewarding occurs. sent4: the sensationalness occurs. sent5: that the seigniory occurs leads to the unbrokenness. sent6: the according happens. sent7: the speleology happens and/or the describing happens. sent8: the saluting occurs if the describing happens. sent9: that the bordering occurs is prevented by that the Zionist and the hierarchicalness happens. sent10: that the saluting happens and the counter-sabotage happens prevents that the proconsulship occurs. sent11: if the fact that the speleology occurs is true then the fact that the saluting occurs is not wrong. sent12: if the bordering happens then the rope-a-dope happens. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 & sent11 & sent8 -> int1: the saluting happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the counter-sabotage occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the saluting and the counter-sabotage occurs.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the proconsulship does not occur.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the sensationalness but not the proconsulship happens.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__