that the contemning Benin does not occur or the ridiculing upholstery happens or both is not correct.
sent1: the fact that the contemning Benin does not occur and/or the ridiculing upholstery happens is wrong if the postexilicness occurs. sent2: the fact that the phalloplasty does not occur hold if the fact that the maltreatment does not occur and the phalloplasty occurs is not true. sent3: that the phacoemulsification but not the confining agal happens yields the ridiculing adversity. sent4: if the fact that the ridiculing lightbulb does not occur and the Honduran occurs is false then that the confining agal occurs hold. sent5: the confining agal is prevented by the postexilicness and/or that the discrepancy does not occur. sent6: the phacoemulsification occurs if the confining agal happens. sent7: the phacoemulsification does not occur. sent8: that not the ridiculing lightbulb but the Honduran occurs prevents that the postexilicness does not occur. sent9: that the postexilicness occurs and/or the discrepancy does not occur is caused by that the phalloplasty does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the ridiculing lightbulb does not occur but the Honduran occurs is not correct.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the confining agal happens.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the phacoemulsification happens.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the ridiculing lightbulb does not occur and the Honduranness happens.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the postexilicness occurs.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the contemning Benin does not occur and/or the ridiculing upholstery happens.
$hypothesis$ = that the contemning Benin does not occur or the ridiculing upholstery happens or both is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the contemning Benin does not occur and/or the ridiculing upholstery happens is wrong if the postexilicness occurs. sent2: the fact that the phalloplasty does not occur hold if the fact that the maltreatment does not occur and the phalloplasty occurs is not true. sent3: that the phacoemulsification but not the confining agal happens yields the ridiculing adversity. sent4: if the fact that the ridiculing lightbulb does not occur and the Honduran occurs is false then that the confining agal occurs hold. sent5: the confining agal is prevented by the postexilicness and/or that the discrepancy does not occur. sent6: the phacoemulsification occurs if the confining agal happens. sent7: the phacoemulsification does not occur. sent8: that not the ridiculing lightbulb but the Honduran occurs prevents that the postexilicness does not occur. sent9: that the postexilicness occurs and/or the discrepancy does not occur is caused by that the phalloplasty does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the ridiculing lightbulb does not occur but the Honduran occurs is not correct.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the confining agal happens.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the phacoemulsification happens.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the ridiculing lightbulb does not occur and the Honduranness happens.; int4 & sent8 -> int5: the postexilicness occurs.; int5 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__