that if the electroencephalographicness does not occur the fact that the dissuasiveness occurs but the bowl does not occur does not hold is wrong.
sent1: the dissuasiveness happens. sent2: the personalness is triggered by that the electroencephalographicness occurs and the blastemalness happens. sent3: the PM does not occur. sent4: the electroencephalographicness happens if the dissuasiveness but not the bowl occurs. sent5: the fact that both the dissuasiveness and the bowl occurs is wrong if the fact that the electroencephalographicness does not occur is correct. sent6: the thrum does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Romanianness happens but the parching AWOL does not occur is false. sent8: if the electroencephalographicness occurs then the fact that the dissuasiveness but not the bowling happens is not right.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the dissuasiveness happens but the bowl does not occur.; sent4 & assump2 -> int1: the electroencephalographicness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the electroencephalographicness does not occur.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the dissuasiveness occurs but the bowling does not occur is not true.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the impersonalness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = that if the electroencephalographicness does not occur the fact that the dissuasiveness occurs but the bowl does not occur does not hold is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the dissuasiveness happens. sent2: the personalness is triggered by that the electroencephalographicness occurs and the blastemalness happens. sent3: the PM does not occur. sent4: the electroencephalographicness happens if the dissuasiveness but not the bowl occurs. sent5: the fact that both the dissuasiveness and the bowl occurs is wrong if the fact that the electroencephalographicness does not occur is correct. sent6: the thrum does not occur. sent7: the fact that the Romanianness happens but the parching AWOL does not occur is false. sent8: if the electroencephalographicness occurs then the fact that the dissuasiveness but not the bowling happens is not right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the dissuasiveness happens but the bowl does not occur.; sent4 & assump2 -> int1: the electroencephalographicness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the electroencephalographicness does not occur.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the dissuasiveness occurs but the bowling does not occur is not true.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__