the homileticness does not occur.
sent1: if the subsidization happens and the desexualizing liveried occurs then the shampooing does not occur. sent2: the feudatoriness triggers that the tornado does not occur and the cut occurs. sent3: the desexualizing rubber occurs. sent4: the feudatoriness happens. sent5: that the desexualizing liveried does not occur triggers that the homileticness happens and the subsidization happens. sent6: the subsidization happens. sent7: the fact that the shampooing does not occur and the anthropologicalness does not occur does not hold if the cut happens. sent8: the androgenicness happens. sent9: if the anthropologicalness happens then the urticating mosque occurs. sent10: if the desexualizing rubber occurs the checkers occurs. sent11: the arbitrage happens if the checkering happens. sent12: the desexualizing liveried happens. sent13: that the homileticness happens is prevented by that both the urticating mosque and the arbitraging occurs.
sent6 & sent12 -> int1: the subsidization happens and the desexualizing liveried occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the shampoo does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the anthropologicalness does not occur.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the shampoo does not occur and the anthropologicalness does not occur.; sent2 & sent4 -> int4: not the tornado but the cut occurs.; int4 -> int5: the cut occurs.; sent7 & int5 -> int6: that the shampoo does not occur and the anthropologicalness does not occur is not right.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the anthropologicalness occurs.; int8 & sent9 -> int9: the urticating mosque happens.; sent10 & sent3 -> int10: the checkering occurs.; sent11 & int10 -> int11: the arbitraging occurs.; int9 & int11 -> int12: the urticating mosque and the arbitrage happens.; int12 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the homileticness occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the homileticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the subsidization happens and the desexualizing liveried occurs then the shampooing does not occur. sent2: the feudatoriness triggers that the tornado does not occur and the cut occurs. sent3: the desexualizing rubber occurs. sent4: the feudatoriness happens. sent5: that the desexualizing liveried does not occur triggers that the homileticness happens and the subsidization happens. sent6: the subsidization happens. sent7: the fact that the shampooing does not occur and the anthropologicalness does not occur does not hold if the cut happens. sent8: the androgenicness happens. sent9: if the anthropologicalness happens then the urticating mosque occurs. sent10: if the desexualizing rubber occurs the checkers occurs. sent11: the arbitrage happens if the checkering happens. sent12: the desexualizing liveried happens. sent13: that the homileticness happens is prevented by that both the urticating mosque and the arbitraging occurs. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent12 -> int1: the subsidization happens and the desexualizing liveried occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the shampoo does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the anthropologicalness does not occur.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the shampoo does not occur and the anthropologicalness does not occur.; sent2 & sent4 -> int4: not the tornado but the cut occurs.; int4 -> int5: the cut occurs.; sent7 & int5 -> int6: that the shampoo does not occur and the anthropologicalness does not occur is not right.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the anthropologicalness occurs.; int8 & sent9 -> int9: the urticating mosque happens.; sent10 & sent3 -> int10: the checkering occurs.; sent11 & int10 -> int11: the arbitraging occurs.; int9 & int11 -> int12: the urticating mosque and the arbitrage happens.; int12 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__