the principalship does not occur.
sent1: if the impelling teapot happens then the Australasianness happens. sent2: the shunning shaker occurs. sent3: the explosion happens if the impelling teapot does not occur. sent4: if that the overreaching applicability does not occur and the manhood does not occur is not true the manhood occurs. sent5: the substantiating does not occur. sent6: the imprecation does not occur if either the dumpiness does not occur or the imprecation does not occur or both. sent7: either the dumpiness does not occur or the imprecation does not occur or both. sent8: the explosion happens. sent9: the non-dumpyness or the imprecation or both happens. sent10: the explosion happens but the manhood does not occur if the impelling teapot does not occur. sent11: the fact that both the overreaching applicability and the psychosurgery occurs does not hold. sent12: that both the overreaching applicability and the psychosurgery happens does not hold if the manhood does not occur. sent13: the astronauticness does not occur. sent14: the overreaching applicability leads to that the principalship does not occur. sent15: if the manhood does not occur then the fact that the overreaching applicability does not occur and the psychosurgery happens is wrong. sent16: the imprecation occurs if the Australasianness occurs. sent17: if the fact that that not the overreaching applicability but the psychosurgery happens is incorrect hold the principalship does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the overreaching applicability does not occur or the explosion does not occur or both is false that the manhood occurs is not false. sent19: either the overreaching boatload does not occur or the smallness occurs or both.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the impelling teapot happens.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the Australasianness happens.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: that the imprecation occurs is right.; sent6 & sent7 -> int3: the imprecation does not occur.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the impelling teapot does not occur.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the explosion happens but the manhood does not occur.; int6 -> int7: the manhood does not occur.; int7 & sent15 -> int8: the fact that the overreaching applicability does not occur but the psychosurgery happens is not right.; int8 & sent17 -> hypothesis;
the principalship occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the principalship does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the impelling teapot happens then the Australasianness happens. sent2: the shunning shaker occurs. sent3: the explosion happens if the impelling teapot does not occur. sent4: if that the overreaching applicability does not occur and the manhood does not occur is not true the manhood occurs. sent5: the substantiating does not occur. sent6: the imprecation does not occur if either the dumpiness does not occur or the imprecation does not occur or both. sent7: either the dumpiness does not occur or the imprecation does not occur or both. sent8: the explosion happens. sent9: the non-dumpyness or the imprecation or both happens. sent10: the explosion happens but the manhood does not occur if the impelling teapot does not occur. sent11: the fact that both the overreaching applicability and the psychosurgery occurs does not hold. sent12: that both the overreaching applicability and the psychosurgery happens does not hold if the manhood does not occur. sent13: the astronauticness does not occur. sent14: the overreaching applicability leads to that the principalship does not occur. sent15: if the manhood does not occur then the fact that the overreaching applicability does not occur and the psychosurgery happens is wrong. sent16: the imprecation occurs if the Australasianness occurs. sent17: if the fact that that not the overreaching applicability but the psychosurgery happens is incorrect hold the principalship does not occur. sent18: if the fact that the overreaching applicability does not occur or the explosion does not occur or both is false that the manhood occurs is not false. sent19: either the overreaching boatload does not occur or the smallness occurs or both. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the impelling teapot happens.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the Australasianness happens.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: that the imprecation occurs is right.; sent6 & sent7 -> int3: the imprecation does not occur.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the impelling teapot does not occur.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the explosion happens but the manhood does not occur.; int6 -> int7: the manhood does not occur.; int7 & sent15 -> int8: the fact that the overreaching applicability does not occur but the psychosurgery happens is not right.; int8 & sent17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__