that the symptomaticness and the licitness occurs is incorrect.
sent1: the wrestle and the scissoring Embiotocidae occurs. sent2: the compromising have-not occurs and the licitness occurs. sent3: if the Leviticalness does not occur then the fact that the cross-examination occurs or the dabbing clipped happens or both is not correct. sent4: the fact that the dabbing sarcasm occurs and the affording happens if the comber does not occur is right. sent5: the bastardization occurs. sent6: that the symptomaticness occurs and the compromising have-not does not occur is not right if the licitness does not occur. sent7: the compromising have-not occurs. sent8: the affording does not occur if the fact that the cross-examination happens and/or the dabbing clipped happens is not correct. sent9: the comber does not occur. sent10: the non-symptomaticness is prevented by that the Leviticalness happens. sent11: that the dabbing sarcasm does not occur triggers that the volumetricness occurs and the affording occurs. sent12: the dabbing sarcasm happens. sent13: the dabbing clipped does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Leviticalness does not occur.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that either the cross-examination happens or the dabbing clipped occurs or both does not hold.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the affording does not occur.; sent4 & sent9 -> int3: that both the dabbing sarcasm and the affording happens is correct.; int3 -> int4: the affording happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the Leviticalness occurs.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the symptomaticness occurs.; sent2 -> int8: the licitness occurs.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
the insectanness occurs and the volumetricness occurs.
$hypothesis$ = that the symptomaticness and the licitness occurs is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the wrestle and the scissoring Embiotocidae occurs. sent2: the compromising have-not occurs and the licitness occurs. sent3: if the Leviticalness does not occur then the fact that the cross-examination occurs or the dabbing clipped happens or both is not correct. sent4: the fact that the dabbing sarcasm occurs and the affording happens if the comber does not occur is right. sent5: the bastardization occurs. sent6: that the symptomaticness occurs and the compromising have-not does not occur is not right if the licitness does not occur. sent7: the compromising have-not occurs. sent8: the affording does not occur if the fact that the cross-examination happens and/or the dabbing clipped happens is not correct. sent9: the comber does not occur. sent10: the non-symptomaticness is prevented by that the Leviticalness happens. sent11: that the dabbing sarcasm does not occur triggers that the volumetricness occurs and the affording occurs. sent12: the dabbing sarcasm happens. sent13: the dabbing clipped does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Leviticalness does not occur.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that either the cross-examination happens or the dabbing clipped occurs or both does not hold.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the affording does not occur.; sent4 & sent9 -> int3: that both the dabbing sarcasm and the affording happens is correct.; int3 -> int4: the affording happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the Leviticalness occurs.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the symptomaticness occurs.; sent2 -> int8: the licitness occurs.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__