the conveyance does not occur.
sent1: the fact that the plunderage happens and the rhombicness happens is wrong. sent2: that the beatification occurs is not incorrect if the fact that not the plunderage but the rhombicness occurs is not right. sent3: that the fox-trot does not occur is prevented by that both the uncluttering and the registration occurs. sent4: the obfuscation is triggered by that the plunderage does not occur but the rhombicness occurs. sent5: if the facial occurs either the obfuscation does not occur or the beatification does not occur or both. sent6: the ravening mind does not occur and the beatification does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that that not the plunderage but the rhombicness occurs hold is wrong.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the beatification happens.; sent6 -> int2: the beatification does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the plunderage does not occur but the rhombicness occurs.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the obfuscation occurs.; int5 -> int6: either the obfuscation or the facial or both occurs.;
the fact that the conveyance occurs is right.
$hypothesis$ = the conveyance does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the plunderage happens and the rhombicness happens is wrong. sent2: that the beatification occurs is not incorrect if the fact that not the plunderage but the rhombicness occurs is not right. sent3: that the fox-trot does not occur is prevented by that both the uncluttering and the registration occurs. sent4: the obfuscation is triggered by that the plunderage does not occur but the rhombicness occurs. sent5: if the facial occurs either the obfuscation does not occur or the beatification does not occur or both. sent6: the ravening mind does not occur and the beatification does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that that not the plunderage but the rhombicness occurs hold is wrong.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the beatification happens.; sent6 -> int2: the beatification does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the plunderage does not occur but the rhombicness occurs.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the obfuscation occurs.; int5 -> int6: either the obfuscation or the facial or both occurs.; __UNKNOWN__