the fact that the perceptibleness happens and the boarding suprainfection happens is incorrect.
sent1: that the pyemicness happens and the picnicking occurs yields the non-Neapolitanness. sent2: if the fact that the audiovisual but not the bar happens does not hold the perceptibleness occurs. sent3: the fact that the jetting laughter but not the intercommunion happens is not correct. sent4: the fact that the audiovisual occurs and the bar happens is not right. sent5: the fact that the peripeteia does not occur is not wrong. sent6: the insolubleness but not the jetting amoralist occurs if the peripeteia does not occur. sent7: that the Neapolitanness does not occur is prevented by that the insolubleness occurs and the jetting amoralist happens. sent8: the pyemicness occurs. sent9: that both the boarding suprainfection and the non-uniformedness occurs is triggered by that the jetting reputation does not occur. sent10: the fact that the perceptibleness and the boarding suprainfection happens is false if the pyemicness does not occur. sent11: that both the boarding corn and the skeleton happens is wrong. sent12: the fact that the audiovisualness occurs and the bar does not occur is incorrect if the picnicking does not occur. sent13: that both the jetting reputation and the redeploying nonperson occurs does not hold. sent14: the jetting reputation does not occur if that both the jetting reputation and the redeploying nonperson happens is wrong. sent15: that the insolubleness happens but the jetting amoralist does not occur prevents the non-Neapolitanness.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the picnicking happens.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the pyemicness and the picnic occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the Neapolitanness does not occur.; sent6 & sent5 -> int3: the insolubleness happens and the jetting amoralist does not occur.; sent15 & int3 -> int4: the Neapolitanness happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the picnicking does not occur.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the fact that the audiovisualness happens but the barring does not occur is incorrect.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the perceptibleness occurs.; sent14 & sent13 -> int9: the jetting reputation does not occur.; sent9 & int9 -> int10: the boarding suprainfection and the non-uniformedness happens.; int10 -> int11: the boarding suprainfection occurs.; int8 & int11 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the perceptibleness happens and the boarding suprainfection happens does not hold.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the perceptibleness happens and the boarding suprainfection happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the pyemicness happens and the picnicking occurs yields the non-Neapolitanness. sent2: if the fact that the audiovisual but not the bar happens does not hold the perceptibleness occurs. sent3: the fact that the jetting laughter but not the intercommunion happens is not correct. sent4: the fact that the audiovisual occurs and the bar happens is not right. sent5: the fact that the peripeteia does not occur is not wrong. sent6: the insolubleness but not the jetting amoralist occurs if the peripeteia does not occur. sent7: that the Neapolitanness does not occur is prevented by that the insolubleness occurs and the jetting amoralist happens. sent8: the pyemicness occurs. sent9: that both the boarding suprainfection and the non-uniformedness occurs is triggered by that the jetting reputation does not occur. sent10: the fact that the perceptibleness and the boarding suprainfection happens is false if the pyemicness does not occur. sent11: that both the boarding corn and the skeleton happens is wrong. sent12: the fact that the audiovisualness occurs and the bar does not occur is incorrect if the picnicking does not occur. sent13: that both the jetting reputation and the redeploying nonperson occurs does not hold. sent14: the jetting reputation does not occur if that both the jetting reputation and the redeploying nonperson happens is wrong. sent15: that the insolubleness happens but the jetting amoralist does not occur prevents the non-Neapolitanness. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the picnicking happens.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the pyemicness and the picnic occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the Neapolitanness does not occur.; sent6 & sent5 -> int3: the insolubleness happens and the jetting amoralist does not occur.; sent15 & int3 -> int4: the Neapolitanness happens.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the picnicking does not occur.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the fact that the audiovisualness happens but the barring does not occur is incorrect.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the perceptibleness occurs.; sent14 & sent13 -> int9: the jetting reputation does not occur.; sent9 & int9 -> int10: the boarding suprainfection and the non-uniformedness happens.; int10 -> int11: the boarding suprainfection occurs.; int8 & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__