the palatalizing assent does not occur.
sent1: the bleach happens. sent2: the transpolarness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the sclerotomy happens and the horseplay does not occur is wrong. sent4: that the deep does not occur prevents that the rationalization happens. sent5: both the non-juridicalness and the bleach occurs. sent6: that the stiffness happens but the rationalization does not occur is wrong. sent7: that the capillariness does not occur is correct if that the capillariness occurs and the prayer does not occur is incorrect. sent8: if that the stiffness occurs and the rationalization does not occur is not correct then that the stiffness does not occur is not false. sent9: the fact that both the palatalizing assent and the non-juridicalness happens is incorrect if the stiff does not occur. sent10: the leverage does not occur. sent11: the fact that the roughing but not the briefing happens is wrong. sent12: that the rationalization does not occur causes that the stiffness does not occur or that the obfuscation does not occur or both. sent13: that the bleaching happens and the juridicalness occurs causes the non-intradepartmentalness. sent14: the backstopping duplicator does not occur.
sent5 -> int1: the juridicalness does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the palatalizing assent occurs is not incorrect.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that both the palatalizing assent and the non-juridicalness occurs is not incorrect.; sent8 & sent6 -> int3: the stiffness does not occur.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the palatalizing assent and the non-juridicalness occurs does not hold.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the intradepartmentalness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the palatalizing assent does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the bleach happens. sent2: the transpolarness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the sclerotomy happens and the horseplay does not occur is wrong. sent4: that the deep does not occur prevents that the rationalization happens. sent5: both the non-juridicalness and the bleach occurs. sent6: that the stiffness happens but the rationalization does not occur is wrong. sent7: that the capillariness does not occur is correct if that the capillariness occurs and the prayer does not occur is incorrect. sent8: if that the stiffness occurs and the rationalization does not occur is not correct then that the stiffness does not occur is not false. sent9: the fact that both the palatalizing assent and the non-juridicalness happens is incorrect if the stiff does not occur. sent10: the leverage does not occur. sent11: the fact that the roughing but not the briefing happens is wrong. sent12: that the rationalization does not occur causes that the stiffness does not occur or that the obfuscation does not occur or both. sent13: that the bleaching happens and the juridicalness occurs causes the non-intradepartmentalness. sent14: the backstopping duplicator does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: the juridicalness does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the palatalizing assent occurs is not incorrect.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that both the palatalizing assent and the non-juridicalness occurs is not incorrect.; sent8 & sent6 -> int3: the stiffness does not occur.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the palatalizing assent and the non-juridicalness occurs does not hold.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__