that the contrast happens if the fact that the sugariness occurs is not wrong is wrong.
sent1: if the ridiculing sene does not occur then the reassurance does not occur but the contorting occurs. sent2: the sainthood happens. sent3: that the contrasting happens is not incorrect if the tearlessness does not occur. sent4: the capacitance does not occur and the confining petitio does not occur if that the reassurance does not occur is correct. sent5: the obeying happens. sent6: that the unquestionableness and the nonfunctionalness happens is triggered by that the confining petitio happens. sent7: that the confining petitio does not occur prevents the questionableness. sent8: the confining petitio happens. sent9: that the dermatologicness does not occur results in that the obeying but not the nonfunctionalness happens. sent10: if both the dermatologicness and the sugariness occurs that the tearlessness does not occur is true. sent11: if the sugariness does not occur both the pneumaticness and the dermatologicness happens.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the dermatologicness does not occur.; sent9 & assump2 -> int1: both the obeying and the non-nonfunctionalness happens.; int1 -> int2: the nonfunctionalness does not occur.; sent6 & sent8 -> int3: not the questionableness but the nonfunctionalness happens.; int3 -> int4: the nonfunctionalness happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the dermatologicness occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sugariness happens.; int6 & assump1 -> int7: the dermatologicness occurs and the sugariness happens.; int7 & sent10 -> int8: the tearlessness does not occur.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the contrast occurs.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
the pneumaticness occurs.
$hypothesis$ = that the contrast happens if the fact that the sugariness occurs is not wrong is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ridiculing sene does not occur then the reassurance does not occur but the contorting occurs. sent2: the sainthood happens. sent3: that the contrasting happens is not incorrect if the tearlessness does not occur. sent4: the capacitance does not occur and the confining petitio does not occur if that the reassurance does not occur is correct. sent5: the obeying happens. sent6: that the unquestionableness and the nonfunctionalness happens is triggered by that the confining petitio happens. sent7: that the confining petitio does not occur prevents the questionableness. sent8: the confining petitio happens. sent9: that the dermatologicness does not occur results in that the obeying but not the nonfunctionalness happens. sent10: if both the dermatologicness and the sugariness occurs that the tearlessness does not occur is true. sent11: if the sugariness does not occur both the pneumaticness and the dermatologicness happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the dermatologicness does not occur.; sent9 & assump2 -> int1: both the obeying and the non-nonfunctionalness happens.; int1 -> int2: the nonfunctionalness does not occur.; sent6 & sent8 -> int3: not the questionableness but the nonfunctionalness happens.; int3 -> int4: the nonfunctionalness happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the dermatologicness occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sugariness happens.; int6 & assump1 -> int7: the dermatologicness occurs and the sugariness happens.; int7 & sent10 -> int8: the tearlessness does not occur.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the contrast occurs.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__