if the criticizing overflow occurs then not the upholding afropavo but the protruding happens.
sent1: that the upholding yellowfin occurs but the overexploitation does not occur brings about that the criticizing overflow does not occur. sent2: the urbanness does not occur. sent3: the protruding happens if that the sparking happens is not wrong. sent4: the upholding yellowfin happens and the overexploitation does not occur if the upholding afropavo occurs. sent5: the protruding happens if the amputation occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the upholding afropavo occurs.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the upholding yellowfin occurs but the overexploitation does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the criticizing overflow does not occur is not false.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the criticizing overflow occurs.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the upholding afropavo does not occur.;
$hypothesis$ = if the criticizing overflow occurs then not the upholding afropavo but the protruding happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the upholding yellowfin occurs but the overexploitation does not occur brings about that the criticizing overflow does not occur. sent2: the urbanness does not occur. sent3: the protruding happens if that the sparking happens is not wrong. sent4: the upholding yellowfin happens and the overexploitation does not occur if the upholding afropavo occurs. sent5: the protruding happens if the amputation occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the upholding afropavo occurs.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the upholding yellowfin occurs but the overexploitation does not occur.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the fact that the criticizing overflow does not occur is not false.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the criticizing overflow occurs.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the upholding afropavo does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__