the confrontationalness does not occur.
sent1: the mandibulofacialness yields the stultification. sent2: if the conviction does not occur then the fact that both the solarizing and the carrot happens is wrong. sent3: if the implementation does not occur then the carrot occurs and the spring-cleaning sesquicentennial happens. sent4: that the dancing fairy does not occur hold if that that the solarizing and the carrot happens does not hold is not incorrect. sent5: the proximateness does not occur. sent6: that the nonruminantness occurs and the tastefulness occurs prevents that the conviction occurs. sent7: the conviction happens and the nonruminantness occurs if the solarizing does not occur. sent8: the dancing fairy occurs. sent9: both the phagocyticness and the tastefulness occurs. sent10: that the orchestration occurs is true. sent11: if that the implementation but not the radiolucentness occurs does not hold the implementation does not occur. sent12: that not the phagocyticness but the confrontationalness occurs is incorrect if the tastefulness does not occur. sent13: the phagocyticness occurs. sent14: if the stultification happens that the implementation occurs but the radiolucentness does not occur is not true. sent15: if the nonruminantness does not occur then the confrontationalness occurs. sent16: if that the solarizing does not occur hold the dancing fairy does not occur.
sent9 -> int1: the tastefulness occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nonruminantness occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the nonruminantness and the tastefulness occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the conviction does not occur.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: that the solarizing and the carrot occurs is not true.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the dancing fairy does not occur.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the nonruminantness does not occur.; int7 & sent15 -> hypothesis;
the confrontationalness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the confrontationalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the mandibulofacialness yields the stultification. sent2: if the conviction does not occur then the fact that both the solarizing and the carrot happens is wrong. sent3: if the implementation does not occur then the carrot occurs and the spring-cleaning sesquicentennial happens. sent4: that the dancing fairy does not occur hold if that that the solarizing and the carrot happens does not hold is not incorrect. sent5: the proximateness does not occur. sent6: that the nonruminantness occurs and the tastefulness occurs prevents that the conviction occurs. sent7: the conviction happens and the nonruminantness occurs if the solarizing does not occur. sent8: the dancing fairy occurs. sent9: both the phagocyticness and the tastefulness occurs. sent10: that the orchestration occurs is true. sent11: if that the implementation but not the radiolucentness occurs does not hold the implementation does not occur. sent12: that not the phagocyticness but the confrontationalness occurs is incorrect if the tastefulness does not occur. sent13: the phagocyticness occurs. sent14: if the stultification happens that the implementation occurs but the radiolucentness does not occur is not true. sent15: if the nonruminantness does not occur then the confrontationalness occurs. sent16: if that the solarizing does not occur hold the dancing fairy does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: the tastefulness occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the nonruminantness occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: both the nonruminantness and the tastefulness occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the conviction does not occur.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: that the solarizing and the carrot occurs is not true.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the dancing fairy does not occur.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the nonruminantness does not occur.; int7 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__