the fact that that the somatosensoriness and the conspicuousness occurs is triggered by that the vaunt does not occur is not true.
sent1: that the excommunication occurs is correct. sent2: the clogging occurs. sent3: the breakaway does not occur. sent4: both the utopianness and the beading happens. sent5: if that the non-ergoticness and the operationalness occurs is incorrect then the operationalness does not occur. sent6: if that the operationalness does not occur is not incorrect then the weaning directness happens but the annunciatoriness does not occur. sent7: if that the hilarness does not occur is correct the fact that the thrombosing cryophobia does not occur and the excommunication does not occur is right. sent8: if the excommunication happens then the thrombosing cryophobia occurs. sent9: the somatosensoriness occurs if the befalling occurs. sent10: that the vaunt occurs results in that both the somatosensoriness and the conspicuousness occurs. sent11: the fact that the conspicuousness occurs and the weaning sawpit happens does not hold if the spectating marl does not occur. sent12: the Africanness happens if the befalling occurs. sent13: that the weaning sawpit does not occur causes that the conspicuousness occurs and the spectating marl occurs. sent14: the vaunt yields that the African happens. sent15: the non-hilarness and the non-residentness occurs if the weaning directness occurs. sent16: if the befalling does not occur then the vaunt happens. sent17: the spectating marl occurs. sent18: if the excommunication happens the thrombosing cryophobia occurs but the weaning sawpit does not occur. sent19: that not the ergoticness but the operationalness occurs is not right if the tutelage does not occur. sent20: the spectating marl does not occur if the thrombosing cryophobia does not occur and the excommunication does not occur. sent21: the thrombosing cryophobia occurs. sent22: if the weaning sawpit does not occur the fact that the spectating marl happens is not wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the befalling does not occur.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the vaunt happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the vaunt does not occur.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the befalling happens.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the somatosensoriness occurs.; sent18 & sent1 -> int5: the thrombosing cryophobia but not the weaning sawpit happens.; int5 -> int6: the weaning sawpit does not occur.; sent13 & int6 -> int7: the conspicuousness happens and the spectating marl occurs.; int7 -> int8: the conspicuousness occurs.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the somatosensoriness and the conspicuousness occurs.; [assump2] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the Africanness happens.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the somatosensoriness and the conspicuousness occurs is triggered by that the vaunt does not occur is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the excommunication occurs is correct. sent2: the clogging occurs. sent3: the breakaway does not occur. sent4: both the utopianness and the beading happens. sent5: if that the non-ergoticness and the operationalness occurs is incorrect then the operationalness does not occur. sent6: if that the operationalness does not occur is not incorrect then the weaning directness happens but the annunciatoriness does not occur. sent7: if that the hilarness does not occur is correct the fact that the thrombosing cryophobia does not occur and the excommunication does not occur is right. sent8: if the excommunication happens then the thrombosing cryophobia occurs. sent9: the somatosensoriness occurs if the befalling occurs. sent10: that the vaunt occurs results in that both the somatosensoriness and the conspicuousness occurs. sent11: the fact that the conspicuousness occurs and the weaning sawpit happens does not hold if the spectating marl does not occur. sent12: the Africanness happens if the befalling occurs. sent13: that the weaning sawpit does not occur causes that the conspicuousness occurs and the spectating marl occurs. sent14: the vaunt yields that the African happens. sent15: the non-hilarness and the non-residentness occurs if the weaning directness occurs. sent16: if the befalling does not occur then the vaunt happens. sent17: the spectating marl occurs. sent18: if the excommunication happens the thrombosing cryophobia occurs but the weaning sawpit does not occur. sent19: that not the ergoticness but the operationalness occurs is not right if the tutelage does not occur. sent20: the spectating marl does not occur if the thrombosing cryophobia does not occur and the excommunication does not occur. sent21: the thrombosing cryophobia occurs. sent22: if the weaning sawpit does not occur the fact that the spectating marl happens is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the befalling does not occur.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the vaunt happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the vaunt does not occur.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the befalling happens.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the somatosensoriness occurs.; sent18 & sent1 -> int5: the thrombosing cryophobia but not the weaning sawpit happens.; int5 -> int6: the weaning sawpit does not occur.; sent13 & int6 -> int7: the conspicuousness happens and the spectating marl occurs.; int7 -> int8: the conspicuousness occurs.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the somatosensoriness and the conspicuousness occurs.; [assump2] & int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__