the flats does not occur.
sent1: not the foraging neurosurgery but the aggression occurs. sent2: the splurge does not occur. sent3: that the emendation occurs but the solicitation does not occur is not right. sent4: the agriculture happens if the emendation does not occur. sent5: that the foraging reintroduction does not occur and the smokelessness happens leads to that the detraining eclat occurs. sent6: not the foraging reintroduction but the smokelessness happens. sent7: the straight does not occur if both the agriculture and the flats occurs. sent8: if the agriculture does not occur then the countermand happens and the flats occurs. sent9: the fact that the splurging and the detraining eclat occurs is not wrong if the smokelessness does not occur. sent10: if the bordering Jarrell does not occur the demoticness and/or the heroicness occurs. sent11: the detraining eclat leads to that the straightness but not the splurging happens. sent12: if the unwholesomeness does not occur then the fact that the foraging reintroduction does not occur and the bordering kraft happens is incorrect. sent13: if the splurge occurs the agriculture does not occur but the straightness happens. sent14: the fact that the magnification but not the fussing occurs does not hold. sent15: that both the detraining eclat and the splurging happens leads to that the agriculture does not occur. sent16: the fact that the fact that the straight does not occur and the flatsness does not occur is not right is correct if the agriculture does not occur. sent17: if the tipping happens the unwholesomeness does not occur. sent18: if the detraining eclat occurs then the splurge does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the flatsness happens.; sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the detraining eclat happens.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the straightness happens but the splurge does not occur hold.; int2 -> int3: the straight occurs.;
the countermand occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the flats does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: not the foraging neurosurgery but the aggression occurs. sent2: the splurge does not occur. sent3: that the emendation occurs but the solicitation does not occur is not right. sent4: the agriculture happens if the emendation does not occur. sent5: that the foraging reintroduction does not occur and the smokelessness happens leads to that the detraining eclat occurs. sent6: not the foraging reintroduction but the smokelessness happens. sent7: the straight does not occur if both the agriculture and the flats occurs. sent8: if the agriculture does not occur then the countermand happens and the flats occurs. sent9: the fact that the splurging and the detraining eclat occurs is not wrong if the smokelessness does not occur. sent10: if the bordering Jarrell does not occur the demoticness and/or the heroicness occurs. sent11: the detraining eclat leads to that the straightness but not the splurging happens. sent12: if the unwholesomeness does not occur then the fact that the foraging reintroduction does not occur and the bordering kraft happens is incorrect. sent13: if the splurge occurs the agriculture does not occur but the straightness happens. sent14: the fact that the magnification but not the fussing occurs does not hold. sent15: that both the detraining eclat and the splurging happens leads to that the agriculture does not occur. sent16: the fact that the fact that the straight does not occur and the flatsness does not occur is not right is correct if the agriculture does not occur. sent17: if the tipping happens the unwholesomeness does not occur. sent18: if the detraining eclat occurs then the splurge does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the flatsness happens.; sent5 & sent6 -> int1: the detraining eclat happens.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the straightness happens but the splurge does not occur hold.; int2 -> int3: the straight occurs.; __UNKNOWN__