the asclepiadaceousness happens.
sent1: that the nonreversibleness does not occur and the asclepiadaceousness does not occur prevents that the shopping occurs. sent2: the bethinking violator does not occur. sent3: if the deicticness happens then the fact that the non-hand-heldness and the non-apologeticsness happens is not right. sent4: if the fact that the nonreversibleness does not occur is not right then the shopping occurs. sent5: if the tearlessness occurs then that both the non-deicticness and the unsympatheticness happens is false. sent6: the apologeticsness and the blackmailing paretic happens. sent7: that the edging Rutherford occurs and the blackmailing paretic occurs is caused by the non-apiculturalness. sent8: if the fact that the boisterousness does not occur is not incorrect the apiculturalness does not occur. sent9: that the asclepiadaceousness occurs is prevented by that the non-unsympatheticness and the shopping occurs. sent10: the knit occurs if the fact that the hand-heldness does not occur and the apologeticsness does not occur does not hold. sent11: if the edging Rutherford occurs then the tearlessness does not occur but the volition occurs. sent12: the edging Rutherford does not occur. sent13: the knit happens and the hand-heldness occurs. sent14: the edging birch occurs if the knit happens. sent15: that the hand-heldness and the apologeticsness happens prevents the deicticness. sent16: not the quantization but the ragging occurs. sent17: the smokelessness occurs. sent18: that the edging Rutherford does not occur causes that the tearlessness and the volition occurs. sent19: the fact that the nonreversibleness happens hold.
sent13 -> int1: the hand-heldness happens.; sent6 -> int2: the fact that the apologeticsness occurs is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hand-heldness happens and the apologeticsness happens.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the deicticness does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unsympatheticness occurs.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: both the non-deicticness and the unsympatheticness occurs.; sent18 & sent12 -> int6: both the tearlessness and the volition occurs.; int6 -> int7: the tearlessness happens.; sent5 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the deicticness does not occur but the unsympatheticness happens is false.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: that the unsympatheticness does not occur is right.; sent4 & sent19 -> int11: the shopping happens.; int10 & int11 -> int12: the unsympatheticness does not occur and the shop happens.; int12 & sent9 -> hypothesis;
the edging birch occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the asclepiadaceousness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the nonreversibleness does not occur and the asclepiadaceousness does not occur prevents that the shopping occurs. sent2: the bethinking violator does not occur. sent3: if the deicticness happens then the fact that the non-hand-heldness and the non-apologeticsness happens is not right. sent4: if the fact that the nonreversibleness does not occur is not right then the shopping occurs. sent5: if the tearlessness occurs then that both the non-deicticness and the unsympatheticness happens is false. sent6: the apologeticsness and the blackmailing paretic happens. sent7: that the edging Rutherford occurs and the blackmailing paretic occurs is caused by the non-apiculturalness. sent8: if the fact that the boisterousness does not occur is not incorrect the apiculturalness does not occur. sent9: that the asclepiadaceousness occurs is prevented by that the non-unsympatheticness and the shopping occurs. sent10: the knit occurs if the fact that the hand-heldness does not occur and the apologeticsness does not occur does not hold. sent11: if the edging Rutherford occurs then the tearlessness does not occur but the volition occurs. sent12: the edging Rutherford does not occur. sent13: the knit happens and the hand-heldness occurs. sent14: the edging birch occurs if the knit happens. sent15: that the hand-heldness and the apologeticsness happens prevents the deicticness. sent16: not the quantization but the ragging occurs. sent17: the smokelessness occurs. sent18: that the edging Rutherford does not occur causes that the tearlessness and the volition occurs. sent19: the fact that the nonreversibleness happens hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 -> int1: the hand-heldness happens.; sent6 -> int2: the fact that the apologeticsness occurs is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hand-heldness happens and the apologeticsness happens.; int3 & sent15 -> int4: the deicticness does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unsympatheticness occurs.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: both the non-deicticness and the unsympatheticness occurs.; sent18 & sent12 -> int6: both the tearlessness and the volition occurs.; int6 -> int7: the tearlessness happens.; sent5 & int7 -> int8: the fact that the deicticness does not occur but the unsympatheticness happens is false.; int5 & int8 -> int9: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int9 -> int10: that the unsympatheticness does not occur is right.; sent4 & sent19 -> int11: the shopping happens.; int10 & int11 -> int12: the unsympatheticness does not occur and the shop happens.; int12 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__