the fact that the polemic happens and the vigilantism happens does not hold.
sent1: the carboxylness happens. sent2: if the vigilantism does not occur then that the compressibleness and the non-nontechnicalness happens does not hold. sent3: if that the mariticide happens hold the vigilantism does not occur. sent4: if the passableness does not occur the polemic happens. sent5: the vigilantism happens. sent6: that the compressibleness and the passableness happens triggers the technicalness. sent7: the catarrhalness does not occur. sent8: if that the debasing happens and the obliterating does not occur is not correct the embolism does not occur. sent9: the polemic does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent10: if the obliterating occurs then that the embolism happens but the nontechnicalness does not occur is incorrect. sent11: the nontechnicalness happens. sent12: that the polemic happens and the vigilantism occurs is wrong if the compressibleness does not occur. sent13: if that the fact that both the embolism and the technicalness occurs is not false is false then the alexicness occurs. sent14: that the gouge does not occur is caused by that the non-compressibleness and the non-alexicness happens. sent15: the alexic happens. sent16: both the compressibleness and the alexicness occurs.
sent16 -> int1: the compressibleness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the passableness happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the compressibleness happens and the passableness happens.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the nontechnicalness does not occur.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the passableness does not occur.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the polemic occurs.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the gouging does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the polemic happens and the vigilantism happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the carboxylness happens. sent2: if the vigilantism does not occur then that the compressibleness and the non-nontechnicalness happens does not hold. sent3: if that the mariticide happens hold the vigilantism does not occur. sent4: if the passableness does not occur the polemic happens. sent5: the vigilantism happens. sent6: that the compressibleness and the passableness happens triggers the technicalness. sent7: the catarrhalness does not occur. sent8: if that the debasing happens and the obliterating does not occur is not correct the embolism does not occur. sent9: the polemic does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent10: if the obliterating occurs then that the embolism happens but the nontechnicalness does not occur is incorrect. sent11: the nontechnicalness happens. sent12: that the polemic happens and the vigilantism occurs is wrong if the compressibleness does not occur. sent13: if that the fact that both the embolism and the technicalness occurs is not false is false then the alexicness occurs. sent14: that the gouge does not occur is caused by that the non-compressibleness and the non-alexicness happens. sent15: the alexic happens. sent16: both the compressibleness and the alexicness occurs. ; $proof$ = 
sent16 -> int1: the compressibleness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the passableness happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the compressibleness happens and the passableness happens.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the nontechnicalness does not occur.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the passableness does not occur.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the polemic occurs.; int6 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__