the boustrophedonicness does not occur.
sent1: the fact that both the legatoness and the militariness occurs is wrong if the unitization does not occur. sent2: that the shank does not occur but the frame occurs is caused by that the legatoness happens. sent3: that the framing does not occur results in that the scenting Dekker happens and the shanking happens. sent4: the peritonealness does not occur if the compelling donna occurs and the boustrophedonicness occurs. sent5: if the shank does not occur that not the scenting Dekker but the polarness occurs is not right. sent6: the boustrophedonicness and the statesmanlikeness occurs if the compelling donna does not occur. sent7: the frame is brought about by that the legatoness occurs. sent8: the legatoness occurs. sent9: the polarness occurs if the scenting Dekker occurs. sent10: the statesmanlikeness does not occur and the compelling donna occurs. sent11: if that the Achaeanness and the Nilotic occurs is false the unitization does not occur. sent12: the expectorating does not occur if the fact that the scenting Dekker does not occur and the polarness happens does not hold. sent13: if the peritonealness does not occur the fact that the expectorating occurs is correct.
sent10 -> int1: the compelling donna occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the boustrophedonicness happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the compelling donna and the boustrophedonicness occurs.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: that the peritonealness does not occur is not incorrect.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the expectorating occurs.; sent2 & sent8 -> int5: not the shank but the frame happens.; int5 -> int6: the shank does not occur.; sent5 & int6 -> int7: that the scenting Dekker does not occur but the polarness happens does not hold.; sent12 & int7 -> int8: the expectorating does not occur.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the boustrophedonicness happens.
$hypothesis$ = the boustrophedonicness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the legatoness and the militariness occurs is wrong if the unitization does not occur. sent2: that the shank does not occur but the frame occurs is caused by that the legatoness happens. sent3: that the framing does not occur results in that the scenting Dekker happens and the shanking happens. sent4: the peritonealness does not occur if the compelling donna occurs and the boustrophedonicness occurs. sent5: if the shank does not occur that not the scenting Dekker but the polarness occurs is not right. sent6: the boustrophedonicness and the statesmanlikeness occurs if the compelling donna does not occur. sent7: the frame is brought about by that the legatoness occurs. sent8: the legatoness occurs. sent9: the polarness occurs if the scenting Dekker occurs. sent10: the statesmanlikeness does not occur and the compelling donna occurs. sent11: if that the Achaeanness and the Nilotic occurs is false the unitization does not occur. sent12: the expectorating does not occur if the fact that the scenting Dekker does not occur and the polarness happens does not hold. sent13: if the peritonealness does not occur the fact that the expectorating occurs is correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> int1: the compelling donna occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the boustrophedonicness happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the compelling donna and the boustrophedonicness occurs.; int2 & sent4 -> int3: that the peritonealness does not occur is not incorrect.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the expectorating occurs.; sent2 & sent8 -> int5: not the shank but the frame happens.; int5 -> int6: the shank does not occur.; sent5 & int6 -> int7: that the scenting Dekker does not occur but the polarness happens does not hold.; sent12 & int7 -> int8: the expectorating does not occur.; int4 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__