the caruncularness does not occur.
sent1: if the unobjectionableness occurs then the caruncularness occurs. sent2: if the disrespecting rya happens then the unobjectionableness occurs. sent3: the northernness occurs. sent4: the dirtyness and the non-caruncularness happens if the fact that the cousinliness does not occur is true. sent5: the Rorschach occurs if the attorneyship occurs. sent6: the disrespecting rya is caused by the quitting. sent7: the stakeout occurs. sent8: the Rorschach prevents that the quitting does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the non-accusatorialness or the northernness or both happens is false if the attorneyship does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the attorneyship does not occur hold.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that either the accusatorialness does not occur or the northernness happens or both is not true.; sent3 -> int2: either the accusatorialness does not occur or the northernness happens or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the attorneyship occurs.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the Rorschach happens.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: that the quitting occurs hold.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the disrespecting rya occurs.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the unobjectionableness happens.; int8 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the paintball happens.
$hypothesis$ = the caruncularness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the unobjectionableness occurs then the caruncularness occurs. sent2: if the disrespecting rya happens then the unobjectionableness occurs. sent3: the northernness occurs. sent4: the dirtyness and the non-caruncularness happens if the fact that the cousinliness does not occur is true. sent5: the Rorschach occurs if the attorneyship occurs. sent6: the disrespecting rya is caused by the quitting. sent7: the stakeout occurs. sent8: the Rorschach prevents that the quitting does not occur. sent9: the fact that either the non-accusatorialness or the northernness or both happens is false if the attorneyship does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the attorneyship does not occur hold.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that either the accusatorialness does not occur or the northernness happens or both is not true.; sent3 -> int2: either the accusatorialness does not occur or the northernness happens or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the attorneyship occurs.; int4 & sent5 -> int5: the Rorschach happens.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: that the quitting occurs hold.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the disrespecting rya occurs.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the unobjectionableness happens.; int8 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__