the firestorm but not the approbating recourse happens.
sent1: that the peritonealness and the nonresident occurs prevents that the approbating recourse happens. sent2: if the peritonealness does not occur both the approbating Hooker and the nonresidentness happens. sent3: if the radical happens the peritonealness happens. sent4: the fact that both the fixation and the coding happens is not right. sent5: that both the non-poeticness and the refutation occurs does not hold if the steep happens. sent6: both the firestorm and the dishonorableness occurs if the furnishing does not occur. sent7: if the nonresidentness does not occur both the non-poeticness and the polarography happens. sent8: the steep happens. sent9: the dishonorableness happens. sent10: the poeticness happens if that both the poeticnessness and the refutation occurs does not hold. sent11: if the dishonorableness does not occur the refutation does not occur and the steeping occurs. sent12: the radicalness happens. sent13: the desertion and the underquoting transparency occurs. sent14: the furnishing does not occur. sent15: the polarography occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nonresident does not occur.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the poeticness does not occur but the polarography happens.; int1 -> int2: the poeticness does not occur.; sent5 & sent8 -> int3: the fact that not the poeticness but the refutation occurs is wrong.; sent10 & int3 -> int4: the poeticness happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the nonresident happens.; sent3 & sent12 -> int7: the peritonealness happens.; int6 & int7 -> int8: both the peritonealness and the nonresidentness occurs.; int8 & sent1 -> int9: the approbating recourse does not occur.; sent6 & sent14 -> int10: the firestorm and the dishonorableness occurs.; int10 -> int11: the firestorm happens.; int9 & int11 -> hypothesis;
the approbating Hooker occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the firestorm but not the approbating recourse happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the peritonealness and the nonresident occurs prevents that the approbating recourse happens. sent2: if the peritonealness does not occur both the approbating Hooker and the nonresidentness happens. sent3: if the radical happens the peritonealness happens. sent4: the fact that both the fixation and the coding happens is not right. sent5: that both the non-poeticness and the refutation occurs does not hold if the steep happens. sent6: both the firestorm and the dishonorableness occurs if the furnishing does not occur. sent7: if the nonresidentness does not occur both the non-poeticness and the polarography happens. sent8: the steep happens. sent9: the dishonorableness happens. sent10: the poeticness happens if that both the poeticnessness and the refutation occurs does not hold. sent11: if the dishonorableness does not occur the refutation does not occur and the steeping occurs. sent12: the radicalness happens. sent13: the desertion and the underquoting transparency occurs. sent14: the furnishing does not occur. sent15: the polarography occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nonresident does not occur.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the poeticness does not occur but the polarography happens.; int1 -> int2: the poeticness does not occur.; sent5 & sent8 -> int3: the fact that not the poeticness but the refutation occurs is wrong.; sent10 & int3 -> int4: the poeticness happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the nonresident happens.; sent3 & sent12 -> int7: the peritonealness happens.; int6 & int7 -> int8: both the peritonealness and the nonresidentness occurs.; int8 & sent1 -> int9: the approbating recourse does not occur.; sent6 & sent14 -> int10: the firestorm and the dishonorableness occurs.; int10 -> int11: the firestorm happens.; int9 & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__