the rubbishing currycomb happens and the generousness does not occur.
sent1: the nilpotentness does not occur. sent2: the skulking is brought about by that the budgetariness occurs but the yawing does not occur. sent3: the generousness does not occur. sent4: that the Parisian happens is prevented by the intrusiveness. sent5: if the fact that both the acanthoticness and the unintrusiveness occurs does not hold then the Parisian does not occur. sent6: if the commercializing Cebuella occurs then the yaws does not occur. sent7: if the commercializing builder does not occur then the generousness does not occur. sent8: if the commercializing builder does not occur the rubbishing currycomb and the non-generousness occurs. sent9: that the commercializing Cebuella occurs causes that the budgetariness happens and the yaws does not occur. sent10: the skulking occurs if both the budgetariness and the yawing occurs. sent11: the commercializing builder does not occur if the Parisian does not occur. sent12: the nilpotentness occurs if the commercializing Cebuella does not occur. sent13: the yawing does not occur. sent14: the fact that the acanthoticness and the intrusiveness occurs is incorrect. sent15: if that the skulking happens is not false then the fact that the fact that both the acanthoticness and the intrusiveness occurs is not incorrect is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the commercializing Cebuella does not occur.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the nilpotentness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the commercializing Cebuella happens.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the budgetariness happens and the yawing does not occur.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: that the skulking happens hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the rubbishing currycomb happens and the generousness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the nilpotentness does not occur. sent2: the skulking is brought about by that the budgetariness occurs but the yawing does not occur. sent3: the generousness does not occur. sent4: that the Parisian happens is prevented by the intrusiveness. sent5: if the fact that both the acanthoticness and the unintrusiveness occurs does not hold then the Parisian does not occur. sent6: if the commercializing Cebuella occurs then the yaws does not occur. sent7: if the commercializing builder does not occur then the generousness does not occur. sent8: if the commercializing builder does not occur the rubbishing currycomb and the non-generousness occurs. sent9: that the commercializing Cebuella occurs causes that the budgetariness happens and the yaws does not occur. sent10: the skulking occurs if both the budgetariness and the yawing occurs. sent11: the commercializing builder does not occur if the Parisian does not occur. sent12: the nilpotentness occurs if the commercializing Cebuella does not occur. sent13: the yawing does not occur. sent14: the fact that the acanthoticness and the intrusiveness occurs is incorrect. sent15: if that the skulking happens is not false then the fact that the fact that both the acanthoticness and the intrusiveness occurs is not incorrect is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the commercializing Cebuella does not occur.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the nilpotentness happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the commercializing Cebuella happens.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the budgetariness happens and the yawing does not occur.; int4 & sent2 -> int5: that the skulking happens hold.; __UNKNOWN__