the fact that the fact that the brazening fund does not occur and the disappearing happens is false if the kick happens is incorrect.
sent1: the fact that not the heeding but the overriding Nerthus happens is wrong if that the C-section occurs is not incorrect. sent2: if the kick happens the brazening fund does not occur and the disappearing happens. sent3: the kick is prevented by that both the brazening fund and the disappearing happens. sent4: the capableness occurs. sent5: not the residual but the jockey happens. sent6: if the scrupling occurs that both the non-dorsalness and the encouraging haze happens is not true. sent7: that the kicking does not occur is prevented by that the brazening fund does not occur but the disappearing happens. sent8: the brazening Lanai does not occur and the thaneship occurs. sent9: the disappearing occurs. sent10: the overriding bittern does not occur if not the brazening handball but the self-denial happens. sent11: that not the brazening fund but the disappearing happens prevents that the kick happens. sent12: that not the precaution but the unsociableness occurs is false. sent13: if the scruple happens then the fact that the womanhood does not occur but the dressing occurs is wrong. sent14: the fact that both the brazening fund and the disappearing occurs is wrong if that the kick happens is correct.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that not the brazening fund but the disappearing occurs.; sent11 & assump2 -> int1: the kicking does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kick happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that not the brazening fund but the disappearing occurs does not hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the brazening fund does not occur and the disappearing happens is false if the kick happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that not the heeding but the overriding Nerthus happens is wrong if that the C-section occurs is not incorrect. sent2: if the kick happens the brazening fund does not occur and the disappearing happens. sent3: the kick is prevented by that both the brazening fund and the disappearing happens. sent4: the capableness occurs. sent5: not the residual but the jockey happens. sent6: if the scrupling occurs that both the non-dorsalness and the encouraging haze happens is not true. sent7: that the kicking does not occur is prevented by that the brazening fund does not occur but the disappearing happens. sent8: the brazening Lanai does not occur and the thaneship occurs. sent9: the disappearing occurs. sent10: the overriding bittern does not occur if not the brazening handball but the self-denial happens. sent11: that not the brazening fund but the disappearing happens prevents that the kick happens. sent12: that not the precaution but the unsociableness occurs is false. sent13: if the scruple happens then the fact that the womanhood does not occur but the dressing occurs is wrong. sent14: the fact that both the brazening fund and the disappearing occurs is wrong if that the kick happens is correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that not the brazening fund but the disappearing occurs.; sent11 & assump2 -> int1: the kicking does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kick happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that not the brazening fund but the disappearing occurs does not hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__