the unapologeticness does not occur.
sent1: the fact that the saltiness does not occur hold. sent2: the fact that that the benefiting does not occur is caused by that the clearing proconsul and the unapologeticness occurs is correct. sent3: if the thoughtfulness does not occur then both the non-Sicilianness and the lavishness occurs. sent4: that the benefiting does not occur is prevented by that both the non-Sicilianness and the lavishness occurs. sent5: the clearing proconsul occurs. sent6: the thoughtfulness does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the unapologeticness occurs is not wrong.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: both the clearing proconsul and the unapologeticness happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the benefit does not occur.; sent3 & sent6 -> int3: the Sicilianness does not occur but the lavishness happens.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the benefiting happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the unapologeticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the saltiness does not occur hold. sent2: the fact that that the benefiting does not occur is caused by that the clearing proconsul and the unapologeticness occurs is correct. sent3: if the thoughtfulness does not occur then both the non-Sicilianness and the lavishness occurs. sent4: that the benefiting does not occur is prevented by that both the non-Sicilianness and the lavishness occurs. sent5: the clearing proconsul occurs. sent6: the thoughtfulness does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the unapologeticness occurs is not wrong.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: both the clearing proconsul and the unapologeticness happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the benefit does not occur.; sent3 & sent6 -> int3: the Sicilianness does not occur but the lavishness happens.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the benefiting happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__