the describing firewater occurs or the prey does not occur or both.
sent1: the fact that the Michelangelesqueness but not the preying happens is not correct if the yielding happens. sent2: the strain occurs if the fact that the fact that the describing conglomerate happens but the scraping does not occur is wrong is not incorrect. sent3: that the describing conglomerate does not occur brings about the straining. sent4: the proteinaceousness does not occur. sent5: the describing teff occurs if the fact that that the sunburst happens and the devastation does not occur does not hold hold. sent6: the strain does not occur if that the yielding does not occur and the strain occurs is wrong. sent7: if the Michelangelesqueness does not occur then the fact that the yield does not occur and the straining occurs is not true. sent8: that not the terminologicalness but the autotelicness occurs is not correct. sent9: the fact that not the subordinatingness but the cremating trudger happens is false. sent10: the fireball does not occur. sent11: if the unbreakableness does not occur then that the describing conglomerate occurs but the scraping does not occur is not right. sent12: the describing firewater happens and/or the prey does not occur if the unbreakableness happens. sent13: if the fact that the Michelangelesqueness occurs but the preying does not occur does not hold the describing firewater does not occur. sent14: if the fact that either the unbreakableness happens or the straining happens or both is incorrect the cleaning divarication does not occur. sent15: the e-commerce does not occur. sent16: the warming does not occur. sent17: the Michelangelesqueness does not occur. sent18: the exempting horoscope occurs if the fact that the internationalness happens but the terminologicalness does not occur is not right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unbreakableness does not occur.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the describing conglomerate but not the scraping occurs does not hold is correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the straining occurs.; sent7 & sent17 -> int3: that not the yielding but the straining happens is wrong.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the strain does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the unbreakableness happens.; int6 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the cleaning divarication does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the describing firewater occurs or the prey does not occur or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Michelangelesqueness but not the preying happens is not correct if the yielding happens. sent2: the strain occurs if the fact that the fact that the describing conglomerate happens but the scraping does not occur is wrong is not incorrect. sent3: that the describing conglomerate does not occur brings about the straining. sent4: the proteinaceousness does not occur. sent5: the describing teff occurs if the fact that that the sunburst happens and the devastation does not occur does not hold hold. sent6: the strain does not occur if that the yielding does not occur and the strain occurs is wrong. sent7: if the Michelangelesqueness does not occur then the fact that the yield does not occur and the straining occurs is not true. sent8: that not the terminologicalness but the autotelicness occurs is not correct. sent9: the fact that not the subordinatingness but the cremating trudger happens is false. sent10: the fireball does not occur. sent11: if the unbreakableness does not occur then that the describing conglomerate occurs but the scraping does not occur is not right. sent12: the describing firewater happens and/or the prey does not occur if the unbreakableness happens. sent13: if the fact that the Michelangelesqueness occurs but the preying does not occur does not hold the describing firewater does not occur. sent14: if the fact that either the unbreakableness happens or the straining happens or both is incorrect the cleaning divarication does not occur. sent15: the e-commerce does not occur. sent16: the warming does not occur. sent17: the Michelangelesqueness does not occur. sent18: the exempting horoscope occurs if the fact that the internationalness happens but the terminologicalness does not occur is not right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unbreakableness does not occur.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the describing conglomerate but not the scraping occurs does not hold is correct.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the straining occurs.; sent7 & sent17 -> int3: that not the yielding but the straining happens is wrong.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the strain does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the unbreakableness happens.; int6 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__