if the dueness does not occur then that the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur is incorrect.
sent1: the quibbling happens if the nomotheticness does not occur and the outgeneraling laurel does not occur. sent2: if that the due does not occur hold then the fact that the provocation and the non-avitaminoticness occurs does not hold. sent3: the stub occurs. sent4: that not the provocation but the avitaminoticness happens does not hold if the dueness does not occur. sent5: the decocting occurs if the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur. sent6: the fact that not the provocation but the avitaminoticness happens does not hold. sent7: the undueness is prevented by the decocting.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the decocting occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the due occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the dueness does not occur.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur does not hold.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the dueness does not occur then that the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the quibbling happens if the nomotheticness does not occur and the outgeneraling laurel does not occur. sent2: if that the due does not occur hold then the fact that the provocation and the non-avitaminoticness occurs does not hold. sent3: the stub occurs. sent4: that not the provocation but the avitaminoticness happens does not hold if the dueness does not occur. sent5: the decocting occurs if the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur. sent6: the fact that not the provocation but the avitaminoticness happens does not hold. sent7: the undueness is prevented by the decocting. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the decocting occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> int2: the due occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the dueness does not occur.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the provocation does not occur and the avitaminoticness does not occur does not hold.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__