the reactiveness does not occur and the glare happens.
sent1: if the Agriculture does not occur the fact that the subscribing but not the magnetizing happens is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the warpath occurs but the hugging does not occur does not hold if the indexing provitamin does not occur. sent3: the impoverishing does not occur if the fact that the warpath but not the hug occurs is not right. sent4: the fact that the indexing provitamin but not the subscribing occurs is not true if that the glaring happens is not wrong. sent5: if the hug does not occur then the fact that the non-reactiveness and the glare occurs is false. sent6: that the indexing provitamin happens or the warpath happens or both brings about that the subscribing does not occur. sent7: that the warpath occurs is triggered by that the hug happens. sent8: if the fact that the hugging occurs and the glare does not occur does not hold then the glare happens. sent9: that the indexing provitamin does not occur hold if the fact that the indexing provitamin happens and the subscribing does not occur does not hold. sent10: that the Agriculture does not occur is triggered by that the vicissitude but not the exponentiation happens. sent11: the vicissitude but not the exponentiation happens. sent12: the originalness but not the exponentiation happens if the mesolithicness occurs. sent13: the vicissitude happens if the original but not the exponentiation happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hugging occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the warpath occurs.; int1 -> int2: the indexing provitamin and/or the warpath occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the subscribing does not occur.; sent10 & sent11 -> int4: the Agriculture does not occur.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the subscribing happens and the magnetizing does not occur.; int5 -> int6: the subscribing occurs.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: that the hugging does not occur is right.; int8 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the impoverishing does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the reactiveness does not occur and the glare happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Agriculture does not occur the fact that the subscribing but not the magnetizing happens is not incorrect. sent2: the fact that the warpath occurs but the hugging does not occur does not hold if the indexing provitamin does not occur. sent3: the impoverishing does not occur if the fact that the warpath but not the hug occurs is not right. sent4: the fact that the indexing provitamin but not the subscribing occurs is not true if that the glaring happens is not wrong. sent5: if the hug does not occur then the fact that the non-reactiveness and the glare occurs is false. sent6: that the indexing provitamin happens or the warpath happens or both brings about that the subscribing does not occur. sent7: that the warpath occurs is triggered by that the hug happens. sent8: if the fact that the hugging occurs and the glare does not occur does not hold then the glare happens. sent9: that the indexing provitamin does not occur hold if the fact that the indexing provitamin happens and the subscribing does not occur does not hold. sent10: that the Agriculture does not occur is triggered by that the vicissitude but not the exponentiation happens. sent11: the vicissitude but not the exponentiation happens. sent12: the originalness but not the exponentiation happens if the mesolithicness occurs. sent13: the vicissitude happens if the original but not the exponentiation happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the hugging occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the warpath occurs.; int1 -> int2: the indexing provitamin and/or the warpath occurs.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the subscribing does not occur.; sent10 & sent11 -> int4: the Agriculture does not occur.; sent1 & int4 -> int5: the subscribing happens and the magnetizing does not occur.; int5 -> int6: the subscribing occurs.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: that the hugging does not occur is right.; int8 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__