that the unmasking happens does not hold.
sent1: the spieling Tungusic occurs if that not the branched but the spieling refraction happens does not hold. sent2: if that the unwrapping folio happens and the cognitiveness does not occur is not correct the spieling refraction does not occur. sent3: the shedding does not occur. sent4: the fact that if the impersonating Rimbaud occurs then the spieling Scorsese occurs is correct. sent5: if the elegantness does not occur then the unwrapping perfectionist happens. sent6: the branching occurs. sent7: if the spieling refraction does not occur then the branched does not occur. sent8: the elegantness does not occur if the shedding does not occur but the waste happens. sent9: the spieling refraction occurs if that either the spieling Scorsese does not occur or the impersonating Rimbaud does not occur or both does not hold. sent10: if the spieling Scorsese happens the visibleness happens. sent11: that the impersonating Rimbaud occurs is caused by that both the unwrapping folio and the non-cognitiveness occurs. sent12: the wasting happens. sent13: if the cognitiveness happens the spieling refraction does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the unwrapping folio but not the cognitiveness occurs is not correct.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the spieling refraction does not occur.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: that the branching does not occur is not incorrect.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: both the unwrapping folio and the non-cognitiveness occurs.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the impersonating Rimbaud happens.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the spieling Scorsese happens.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the visibleness happens.; sent3 & sent12 -> int8: not the shedding but the waste occurs.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the elegantness does not occur.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the unwrapping perfectionist happens.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the visibleness occurs and the unwrapping perfectionist happens.;
the spieling Tungusic happens.
$hypothesis$ = that the unmasking happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the spieling Tungusic occurs if that not the branched but the spieling refraction happens does not hold. sent2: if that the unwrapping folio happens and the cognitiveness does not occur is not correct the spieling refraction does not occur. sent3: the shedding does not occur. sent4: the fact that if the impersonating Rimbaud occurs then the spieling Scorsese occurs is correct. sent5: if the elegantness does not occur then the unwrapping perfectionist happens. sent6: the branching occurs. sent7: if the spieling refraction does not occur then the branched does not occur. sent8: the elegantness does not occur if the shedding does not occur but the waste happens. sent9: the spieling refraction occurs if that either the spieling Scorsese does not occur or the impersonating Rimbaud does not occur or both does not hold. sent10: if the spieling Scorsese happens the visibleness happens. sent11: that the impersonating Rimbaud occurs is caused by that both the unwrapping folio and the non-cognitiveness occurs. sent12: the wasting happens. sent13: if the cognitiveness happens the spieling refraction does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the unwrapping folio but not the cognitiveness occurs is not correct.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the spieling refraction does not occur.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: that the branching does not occur is not incorrect.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: both the unwrapping folio and the non-cognitiveness occurs.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the impersonating Rimbaud happens.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the spieling Scorsese happens.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: the visibleness happens.; sent3 & sent12 -> int8: not the shedding but the waste occurs.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the elegantness does not occur.; sent5 & int9 -> int10: the unwrapping perfectionist happens.; int7 & int10 -> int11: the visibleness occurs and the unwrapping perfectionist happens.; __UNKNOWN__