that the fact that the non-indusialness and the caress occurs is wrong is not false.
sent1: that the nonoperationalness does not occur leads to that both the non-indusialness and the caressing occurs. sent2: the fact that the fact that the cut-in occurs but the dwindling does not occur is not right if the floundering on-license happens is not wrong. sent3: that the cut-in occurs and the dwindling occurs is not correct. sent4: the immunodeficientness happens. sent5: if the immunodeficientness occurs then the cut-in happens and the dwindling does not occur. sent6: the nonoperationalness does not occur if the floundering on-license does not occur. sent7: the indusialness does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the floundering on-license occurs.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the cut-in but not the dwindling happens hold is not right.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the cut-in but not the dwindling occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the floundering on-license does not occur.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the nonoperationalness does not occur.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
that not the indusialness but the caress occurs does not hold.
 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the non-indusialness and the caress occurs is wrong is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nonoperationalness does not occur leads to that both the non-indusialness and the caressing occurs. sent2: the fact that the fact that the cut-in occurs but the dwindling does not occur is not right if the floundering on-license happens is not wrong. sent3: that the cut-in occurs and the dwindling occurs is not correct. sent4: the immunodeficientness happens. sent5: if the immunodeficientness occurs then the cut-in happens and the dwindling does not occur. sent6: the nonoperationalness does not occur if the floundering on-license does not occur. sent7: the indusialness does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the floundering on-license occurs.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the cut-in but not the dwindling happens hold is not right.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the cut-in but not the dwindling occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the floundering on-license does not occur.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the nonoperationalness does not occur.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__