the fact that the fact that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur is not correct if the tympaniticness occurs does not hold.
sent1: the pollution or the mixing or both happens. sent2: the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur. sent3: that that the sentimentalising dermatologist occurs but the epizoicness does not occur is wrong hold. sent4: the tympaniticness does not occur if the fact that the pollution does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: that the tympaniticness does not occur is triggered by that the pollution does not occur and/or that the mixing occurs. sent6: if the tympaniticness happens then the fact that both the sentimentalising dermatologist and the non-epizoicness happens is not true. sent7: if the tympaniticness occurs that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur but the epizoicness happens is false. sent8: that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur is caused by the tympaniticness. sent9: that the tympaniticness does not occur is prevented by that the pollution does not occur or the mixing or both. sent10: the mix occurs if the epizoicness does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tympaniticness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur.; assump2 -> int1: the epizoicness does not occur.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the mix occurs.; int2 -> int3: the pollution does not occur and/or the mixing happens.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the tympaniticness does not occur.; assump1 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the fact that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur is not right.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur is not correct if the tympaniticness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the pollution or the mixing or both happens. sent2: the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur. sent3: that that the sentimentalising dermatologist occurs but the epizoicness does not occur is wrong hold. sent4: the tympaniticness does not occur if the fact that the pollution does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: that the tympaniticness does not occur is triggered by that the pollution does not occur and/or that the mixing occurs. sent6: if the tympaniticness happens then the fact that both the sentimentalising dermatologist and the non-epizoicness happens is not true. sent7: if the tympaniticness occurs that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur but the epizoicness happens is false. sent8: that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur is caused by the tympaniticness. sent9: that the tympaniticness does not occur is prevented by that the pollution does not occur or the mixing or both. sent10: the mix occurs if the epizoicness does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tympaniticness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur.; assump2 -> int1: the epizoicness does not occur.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the mix occurs.; int2 -> int3: the pollution does not occur and/or the mixing happens.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the tympaniticness does not occur.; assump1 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the fact that the sentimentalising dermatologist does not occur and the epizoicness does not occur is not right.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__