the fact that both the award and the rulership happens does not hold.
sent1: not the roughening but the starting happens. sent2: the diverging happens. sent3: that the award does not occur is prevented by that the perusing duality happens. sent4: the fact that that the perusing duality does not occur is prevented by either that the snookering does not occur or that the on-siteness occurs or both hold. sent5: that the rulership does not occur is prevented by that the roughening does not occur but the start occurs. sent6: the hanging occurs. sent7: the diverging does not occur if the impinging uxor does not occur but the snooker happens. sent8: the impinging uxor does not occur. sent9: that the briefing slumber does not occur is caused by that the impinging uxor occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the snookering occurs.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the impinging uxor does not occur but the snookering happens.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the diverging does not occur.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the snookering does not occur.; int4 -> int5: either the snooker does not occur or the on-siteness occurs or both.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the fact that the perusing duality happens is correct.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: the awarding occurs.; sent5 & sent1 -> int8: the rulership occurs.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis;
that the award and the rulership occurs is not right.
 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the award and the rulership happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: not the roughening but the starting happens. sent2: the diverging happens. sent3: that the award does not occur is prevented by that the perusing duality happens. sent4: the fact that that the perusing duality does not occur is prevented by either that the snookering does not occur or that the on-siteness occurs or both hold. sent5: that the rulership does not occur is prevented by that the roughening does not occur but the start occurs. sent6: the hanging occurs. sent7: the diverging does not occur if the impinging uxor does not occur but the snooker happens. sent8: the impinging uxor does not occur. sent9: that the briefing slumber does not occur is caused by that the impinging uxor occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the snookering occurs.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the impinging uxor does not occur but the snookering happens.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the diverging does not occur.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the snookering does not occur.; int4 -> int5: either the snooker does not occur or the on-siteness occurs or both.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the fact that the perusing duality happens is correct.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: the awarding occurs.; sent5 & sent1 -> int8: the rulership occurs.; int7 & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__