the fact that that the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur triggers that not the decalescence but the seraphicness happens does not hold.
sent1: the brush does not occur. sent2: the stunner is caused by that the expiratoriness happens. sent3: the utility does not occur but the Aleutianness happens if the auralness does not occur. sent4: the sanctification occurs. sent5: if the worsening does not occur both the sanctification and the drum occurs. sent6: the destructiveness occurs. sent7: the reasonableness occurs and the uplift occurs. sent8: that if the reasonableness happens then the fact that the seraphicness does not occur is not true is right. sent9: if the fact that the obligatedness happens is not false the firewall does not occur. sent10: the couture and the ventricularness occurs. sent11: if the undependableness and the supplicating happens the sparkling does not occur. sent12: the quarrel does not occur if the worsening does not occur and/or the sanctification occurs. sent13: the decalescence is prevented by that the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur and the obligating does not occur. sent14: the aerophilatelicness does not occur. sent15: that that the spirometry does not occur but the levy occurs is brought about by that the ticktock does not occur is true. sent16: the fact that the reasonableness but not the uplifting occurs is not right. sent17: the non-obligatedness is triggered by that both the sanctification and the worsening occurs. sent18: the booting does not occur. sent19: the undependableness happens and the countercoup happens. sent20: the fact that the worsening occurs is true.
sent4 & sent20 -> int1: the sanctification occurs and the worsening happens.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the obligatedness does not occur is right.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur and the obligatedness does not occur.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the decalescence does not occur.; sent7 -> int5: the reasonableness happens.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the seraphicness occurs.; int4 & int6 -> int7: not the decalescence but the seraphicness occurs.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the drum occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur triggers that not the decalescence but the seraphicness happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the brush does not occur. sent2: the stunner is caused by that the expiratoriness happens. sent3: the utility does not occur but the Aleutianness happens if the auralness does not occur. sent4: the sanctification occurs. sent5: if the worsening does not occur both the sanctification and the drum occurs. sent6: the destructiveness occurs. sent7: the reasonableness occurs and the uplift occurs. sent8: that if the reasonableness happens then the fact that the seraphicness does not occur is not true is right. sent9: if the fact that the obligatedness happens is not false the firewall does not occur. sent10: the couture and the ventricularness occurs. sent11: if the undependableness and the supplicating happens the sparkling does not occur. sent12: the quarrel does not occur if the worsening does not occur and/or the sanctification occurs. sent13: the decalescence is prevented by that the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur and the obligating does not occur. sent14: the aerophilatelicness does not occur. sent15: that that the spirometry does not occur but the levy occurs is brought about by that the ticktock does not occur is true. sent16: the fact that the reasonableness but not the uplifting occurs is not right. sent17: the non-obligatedness is triggered by that both the sanctification and the worsening occurs. sent18: the booting does not occur. sent19: the undependableness happens and the countercoup happens. sent20: the fact that the worsening occurs is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 & sent20 -> int1: the sanctification occurs and the worsening happens.; int1 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the obligatedness does not occur is right.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: the abdicating surrejoinder does not occur and the obligatedness does not occur.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the decalescence does not occur.; sent7 -> int5: the reasonableness happens.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the seraphicness occurs.; int4 & int6 -> int7: not the decalescence but the seraphicness occurs.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__