the batching PVA does not occur.
sent1: the crustaceousness and the alligatoring occurs if the rhythm does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the constellating does not occur and the rhythm occurs is incorrect then the rhythm does not occur. sent3: the alligatoring occurs. sent4: if the fact that the rhythm occurs and the upgrade occurs is wrong then the crustaceousness does not occur. sent5: that the rhythm occurs and the upgrading happens is not correct. sent6: if the antinomianness does not occur and the solicitorship does not occur then the batching PVA occurs. sent7: if the visiting does not occur then that the solicitorship happens and the lexicalizing Delacroix occurs is not right. sent8: the batching PVA is caused by that the antinomian does not occur and/or the batching PVA. sent9: the lexicalizing Delacroix is prevented by that the antinomian happens or the solicitorship occurs or both. sent10: the ploy occurs if the rave does not occur and the visiting does not occur. sent11: the languishing does not occur. sent12: the ploy occurs if the raving occurs and the visiting does not occur. sent13: if the fact that not the antinomian but the wending occurs does not hold then the wending does not occur. sent14: that the upgrading does not occur brings about that the crustaceousness does not occur. sent15: if that the crustaceousness happens and the alligatoring does not occur does not hold then the alligatoring happens. sent16: the antinomian happens. sent17: that the perceptibleness but not the ploy occurs results in that the rave does not occur. sent18: if the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur that the rave does not occur is right. sent19: that the crustaceousness but not the alligatoring happens does not hold if the rhythm does not occur. sent20: the non-crustaceousness prevents that the alligator does not occur. sent21: the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur if the solicitorship happens. sent22: that both the perceptibleness and the alligator happens is brought about by that the crustaceousness does not occur. sent23: that the ploy and the batching PVA happens results in the imperceptibleness. sent24: the raving does not occur. sent25: that the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur leads to that the rave does not occur and the visiting does not occur.
sent16 -> int1: the antinomianness and/or the solicitorship occurs.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur.; int2 & sent25 -> int3: the raving does not occur and the visiting does not occur.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: that the ploy does not occur is not correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the batching PVA happens.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: the ploy and the batching PVA happens.; int5 & sent23 -> int6: the fact that the perceptibleness does not occur is not incorrect.; sent4 & sent5 -> int7: the crustaceousness does not occur.; sent22 & int7 -> int8: the perceptibleness and the alligatoring occurs.; int8 -> int9: the perceptibleness occurs.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis;
the wending does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the batching PVA does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the crustaceousness and the alligatoring occurs if the rhythm does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the constellating does not occur and the rhythm occurs is incorrect then the rhythm does not occur. sent3: the alligatoring occurs. sent4: if the fact that the rhythm occurs and the upgrade occurs is wrong then the crustaceousness does not occur. sent5: that the rhythm occurs and the upgrading happens is not correct. sent6: if the antinomianness does not occur and the solicitorship does not occur then the batching PVA occurs. sent7: if the visiting does not occur then that the solicitorship happens and the lexicalizing Delacroix occurs is not right. sent8: the batching PVA is caused by that the antinomian does not occur and/or the batching PVA. sent9: the lexicalizing Delacroix is prevented by that the antinomian happens or the solicitorship occurs or both. sent10: the ploy occurs if the rave does not occur and the visiting does not occur. sent11: the languishing does not occur. sent12: the ploy occurs if the raving occurs and the visiting does not occur. sent13: if the fact that not the antinomian but the wending occurs does not hold then the wending does not occur. sent14: that the upgrading does not occur brings about that the crustaceousness does not occur. sent15: if that the crustaceousness happens and the alligatoring does not occur does not hold then the alligatoring happens. sent16: the antinomian happens. sent17: that the perceptibleness but not the ploy occurs results in that the rave does not occur. sent18: if the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur that the rave does not occur is right. sent19: that the crustaceousness but not the alligatoring happens does not hold if the rhythm does not occur. sent20: the non-crustaceousness prevents that the alligator does not occur. sent21: the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur if the solicitorship happens. sent22: that both the perceptibleness and the alligator happens is brought about by that the crustaceousness does not occur. sent23: that the ploy and the batching PVA happens results in the imperceptibleness. sent24: the raving does not occur. sent25: that the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur leads to that the rave does not occur and the visiting does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
sent16 -> int1: the antinomianness and/or the solicitorship occurs.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the lexicalizing Delacroix does not occur.; int2 & sent25 -> int3: the raving does not occur and the visiting does not occur.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: that the ploy does not occur is not correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the batching PVA happens.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: the ploy and the batching PVA happens.; int5 & sent23 -> int6: the fact that the perceptibleness does not occur is not incorrect.; sent4 & sent5 -> int7: the crustaceousness does not occur.; sent22 & int7 -> int8: the perceptibleness and the alligatoring occurs.; int8 -> int9: the perceptibleness occurs.; int6 & int9 -> int10: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__