that the immobilizing does not occur if the backhander occurs is not right.
sent1: that the gore happens and the immobilizing happens causes the backhander. sent2: the gore occurs. sent3: not the backhander but the concretizing lenitive occurs if that the handball does not occur is not false. sent4: that the backhander does not occur is true if the goring happens and the immobilizing happens. sent5: if the backhander occurs then the immobilizing happens. sent6: the ballgame occurs. sent7: if that the fact that both the immobilizing and the pyreticness happens is not correct is not false the pyreticness does not occur. sent8: that the gore does not occur is triggered by that not the backhander but the concretizing lenitive occurs. sent9: the bouncing does not occur if the fact that the surpassing occurs is correct. sent10: that both the immobilizing and the pyreticness happens is false if the goring does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the backhander occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the immobilizing occurs.; sent2 & assump2 -> int1: both the goring and the immobilizing happens.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the backhander does not occur.; assump1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the immobilizing does not occur.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the pyreticness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = that the immobilizing does not occur if the backhander occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gore happens and the immobilizing happens causes the backhander. sent2: the gore occurs. sent3: not the backhander but the concretizing lenitive occurs if that the handball does not occur is not false. sent4: that the backhander does not occur is true if the goring happens and the immobilizing happens. sent5: if the backhander occurs then the immobilizing happens. sent6: the ballgame occurs. sent7: if that the fact that both the immobilizing and the pyreticness happens is not correct is not false the pyreticness does not occur. sent8: that the gore does not occur is triggered by that not the backhander but the concretizing lenitive occurs. sent9: the bouncing does not occur if the fact that the surpassing occurs is correct. sent10: that both the immobilizing and the pyreticness happens is false if the goring does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the backhander occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the immobilizing occurs.; sent2 & assump2 -> int1: both the goring and the immobilizing happens.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: the backhander does not occur.; assump1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the immobilizing does not occur.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__