the blackjack does not occur.
sent1: if the soccer does not occur the Thoreauvianness occurs. sent2: the pretending happens. sent3: that the soccer does not occur is triggered by that not the pitting inhibition but the avenue happens. sent4: the fact that either the aceticness does not occur or the lobbing headgear does not occur or both is incorrect. sent5: the coaching happens. sent6: the avenue happens. sent7: the blackjack happens if the coaching does not occur and/or the pitting inhibition occurs. sent8: the fact that the falsehood does not occur is not wrong if the pitting inhibition occurs and the coaching happens. sent9: the fact that the Thoreauvianness happens is not wrong. sent10: the falsehood occurs. sent11: if the panting does not occur and the saneness occurs then the rampage does not occur. sent12: the electroshock leads to that the Thoreauvianness but not the soccer occurs. sent13: if the fact that either the Thoreauvianness does not occur or the electroshock does not occur or both is not correct then the blackjack does not occur. sent14: that either the Thoreauvianness does not occur or the electroshock does not occur or both is incorrect if the soccer does not occur. sent15: if not the melding but the pulping occurs then the criticizing satang does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pitting inhibition occurs.; assump1 & sent5 -> int1: the pitting inhibition and the coaching happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the falsehood does not occur.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the pitting inhibition does not occur.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the pitting inhibition does not occur but the avenue happens.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the soccer does not occur.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: that either the Thoreauvianness does not occur or the electroshock does not occur or both is incorrect.; int7 & sent13 -> hypothesis;
the blackjack occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the blackjack does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the soccer does not occur the Thoreauvianness occurs. sent2: the pretending happens. sent3: that the soccer does not occur is triggered by that not the pitting inhibition but the avenue happens. sent4: the fact that either the aceticness does not occur or the lobbing headgear does not occur or both is incorrect. sent5: the coaching happens. sent6: the avenue happens. sent7: the blackjack happens if the coaching does not occur and/or the pitting inhibition occurs. sent8: the fact that the falsehood does not occur is not wrong if the pitting inhibition occurs and the coaching happens. sent9: the fact that the Thoreauvianness happens is not wrong. sent10: the falsehood occurs. sent11: if the panting does not occur and the saneness occurs then the rampage does not occur. sent12: the electroshock leads to that the Thoreauvianness but not the soccer occurs. sent13: if the fact that either the Thoreauvianness does not occur or the electroshock does not occur or both is not correct then the blackjack does not occur. sent14: that either the Thoreauvianness does not occur or the electroshock does not occur or both is incorrect if the soccer does not occur. sent15: if not the melding but the pulping occurs then the criticizing satang does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pitting inhibition occurs.; assump1 & sent5 -> int1: the pitting inhibition and the coaching happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the falsehood does not occur.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the pitting inhibition does not occur.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the pitting inhibition does not occur but the avenue happens.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the soccer does not occur.; int6 & sent14 -> int7: that either the Thoreauvianness does not occur or the electroshock does not occur or both is incorrect.; int7 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__