if the antibiotic happens the liming abasia does not occur and the hatefulness does not occur.
sent1: that the liming abasia occurs results in that the inflectionalness but not the helming occurs. sent2: the antibiotic does not occur if the inflectionalness happens but the helm does not occur. sent3: the aid triggers that the deactivation does not occur and the plating jail does not occur. sent4: the aid occurs. sent5: the fact that the hatefulness and the terming pharmacopoeia occurs does not hold if the deactivation does not occur. sent6: if that the hatefulness occurs and the terming pharmacopoeia happens does not hold the hatefulness does not occur. sent7: the call-out does not occur if that the antibioticness does not occur and the liming abasia does not occur is wrong.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the liming abasia occurs.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the inflectionalness happens but the helming does not occur.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the antibiotic does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the antibioticness occurs.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the liming abasia does not occur.; sent3 & sent4 -> int5: the deactivation does not occur and the plating jail does not occur.; int5 -> int6: the deactivation does not occur.; sent5 & int6 -> int7: that both the hatefulness and the terming pharmacopoeia happens is wrong.; sent6 & int7 -> int8: the hatefulness does not occur.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the liming abasia does not occur and the hatefulness does not occur.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the call-out does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = if the antibiotic happens the liming abasia does not occur and the hatefulness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the liming abasia occurs results in that the inflectionalness but not the helming occurs. sent2: the antibiotic does not occur if the inflectionalness happens but the helm does not occur. sent3: the aid triggers that the deactivation does not occur and the plating jail does not occur. sent4: the aid occurs. sent5: the fact that the hatefulness and the terming pharmacopoeia occurs does not hold if the deactivation does not occur. sent6: if that the hatefulness occurs and the terming pharmacopoeia happens does not hold the hatefulness does not occur. sent7: the call-out does not occur if that the antibioticness does not occur and the liming abasia does not occur is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the liming abasia occurs.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the inflectionalness happens but the helming does not occur.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the antibiotic does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the antibioticness occurs.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the liming abasia does not occur.; sent3 & sent4 -> int5: the deactivation does not occur and the plating jail does not occur.; int5 -> int6: the deactivation does not occur.; sent5 & int6 -> int7: that both the hatefulness and the terming pharmacopoeia happens is wrong.; sent6 & int7 -> int8: the hatefulness does not occur.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the liming abasia does not occur and the hatefulness does not occur.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__