if the rat-a-tat-tat occurs then not the tunneling twang but the owning AS occurs.
sent1: that the owning romanticism does not occur leads to that both the owning AS and the visiting occurs. sent2: that the reparableness but not the removing occurs is not correct if the shortstop does not occur. sent3: the owning romanticism does not occur if that the reparableness occurs but the removing does not occur is not correct. sent4: if the tunneling July occurs the tunneling twang does not occur. sent5: if the tunneling July does not occur that not the framing but the gallantry happens is not correct. sent6: the fact that the deaminating pole does not occur and the indication does not occur does not hold. sent7: the shortstop does not occur if that the deaminating pole does not occur and the indication does not occur is not right. sent8: if the fact that the framing does not occur and the gallantry occurs is wrong then the fact that the rat-a-tat-tat does not occur is right.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the tunneling July does not occur.; sent5 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the framing does not occur but the gallantry occurs is not true.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the rat-a-tat-tat does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rat-a-tat-tat occurs.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the tunneling July occurs.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the tunneling twang does not occur.; sent7 & sent6 -> int6: the shortstop does not occur.; sent2 & int6 -> int7: that the reparableness happens and the remove does not occur is not correct.; sent3 & int7 -> int8: the owning romanticism does not occur.; sent1 & int8 -> int9: both the owning AS and the visiting occurs.; int9 -> int10: the owning AS happens.; int5 & int10 -> int11: not the tunneling twang but the owning AS happens.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the rat-a-tat-tat occurs then not the tunneling twang but the owning AS occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the owning romanticism does not occur leads to that both the owning AS and the visiting occurs. sent2: that the reparableness but not the removing occurs is not correct if the shortstop does not occur. sent3: the owning romanticism does not occur if that the reparableness occurs but the removing does not occur is not correct. sent4: if the tunneling July occurs the tunneling twang does not occur. sent5: if the tunneling July does not occur that not the framing but the gallantry happens is not correct. sent6: the fact that the deaminating pole does not occur and the indication does not occur does not hold. sent7: the shortstop does not occur if that the deaminating pole does not occur and the indication does not occur is not right. sent8: if the fact that the framing does not occur and the gallantry occurs is wrong then the fact that the rat-a-tat-tat does not occur is right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the tunneling July does not occur.; sent5 & assump2 -> int1: the fact that the framing does not occur but the gallantry occurs is not true.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the rat-a-tat-tat does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the rat-a-tat-tat occurs.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the tunneling July occurs.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the tunneling twang does not occur.; sent7 & sent6 -> int6: the shortstop does not occur.; sent2 & int6 -> int7: that the reparableness happens and the remove does not occur is not correct.; sent3 & int7 -> int8: the owning romanticism does not occur.; sent1 & int8 -> int9: both the owning AS and the visiting occurs.; int9 -> int10: the owning AS happens.; int5 & int10 -> int11: not the tunneling twang but the owning AS happens.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__