that the thirsting Bradley does not occur is not incorrect if the Rosicrucian occurs.
sent1: the virileness does not occur if the southeaster does not occur and the ambassadorship occurs. sent2: if the fact that the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur is not false then that the Rosicrucianness does not occur is correct. sent3: if the fact that not the southeaster but the ambassadorship happens does not hold then the thirsting Bradley does not occur. sent4: if the virileness does not occur the covering does not occur. sent5: if the ambassadorship does not occur the thirsting Bradley does not occur. sent6: the Rosicrucianness is triggered by that the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur. sent7: the Ghanaianness occurs. sent8: if that the virileness does not occur hold then the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur. sent9: the ambassadorship happens.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Rosicrucianness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the southeaster does not occur and the ambassadorship happens is not incorrect.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the virileness does not occur.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur.; sent2 & int2 -> int3: the Rosicrucian does not occur.; assump2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the southeaster does not occur and the ambassadorship happens does not hold.; sent3 & int5 -> int6: the thirsting Bradley does not occur.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the thirsting Bradley does not occur is not incorrect if the Rosicrucian occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the virileness does not occur if the southeaster does not occur and the ambassadorship occurs. sent2: if the fact that the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur is not false then that the Rosicrucianness does not occur is correct. sent3: if the fact that not the southeaster but the ambassadorship happens does not hold then the thirsting Bradley does not occur. sent4: if the virileness does not occur the covering does not occur. sent5: if the ambassadorship does not occur the thirsting Bradley does not occur. sent6: the Rosicrucianness is triggered by that the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur. sent7: the Ghanaianness occurs. sent8: if that the virileness does not occur hold then the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur. sent9: the ambassadorship happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Rosicrucianness happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the southeaster does not occur and the ambassadorship happens is not incorrect.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the virileness does not occur.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: the rumination does not occur and the covering does not occur.; sent2 & int2 -> int3: the Rosicrucian does not occur.; assump2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the southeaster does not occur and the ambassadorship happens does not hold.; sent3 & int5 -> int6: the thirsting Bradley does not occur.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__