the batching jackknife-fish does not occur.
sent1: if the fact that the channels does not occur but the subtractiveness occurs is false then the fact that the batching jackknife-fish occurs hold. sent2: the channels occurs. sent3: that the pressure does not occur brings about that the barring Lippizan but not the staggering emotionality occurs. sent4: the batching jackknife-fish occurs if the subtractiveness does not occur. sent5: the centesimalness occurs if the fact that the activation does not occur but the LASEK occurs is not correct. sent6: if the centesimalness happens then the catapulticness does not occur and the pressure does not occur. sent7: the subtractiveness happens. sent8: that not the activation but the LASEK happens is not right if the apothecialness happens. sent9: that the market does not occur is caused by that the barring Lippizan occurs. sent10: that both the subtractiveness and the submersible occurs is triggered by that the market does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the channels but the subtractiveness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the channeling does not occur.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the channeling does not occur but the subtractiveness occurs does not hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the batching jackknife-fish does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the batching jackknife-fish does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the channels does not occur but the subtractiveness occurs is false then the fact that the batching jackknife-fish occurs hold. sent2: the channels occurs. sent3: that the pressure does not occur brings about that the barring Lippizan but not the staggering emotionality occurs. sent4: the batching jackknife-fish occurs if the subtractiveness does not occur. sent5: the centesimalness occurs if the fact that the activation does not occur but the LASEK occurs is not correct. sent6: if the centesimalness happens then the catapulticness does not occur and the pressure does not occur. sent7: the subtractiveness happens. sent8: that not the activation but the LASEK happens is not right if the apothecialness happens. sent9: that the market does not occur is caused by that the barring Lippizan occurs. sent10: that both the subtractiveness and the submersible occurs is triggered by that the market does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the channels but the subtractiveness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the channeling does not occur.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the channeling does not occur but the subtractiveness occurs does not hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__