if the parochialness occurs the fact that that the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur is incorrect hold.
sent1: the fact that not the trafficking pasha but the numericalness occurs is wrong. sent2: the parochialness does not occur if the recognition does not occur. sent3: that the magic does not occur and the emergency does not occur is wrong. sent4: the recognition does not occur if the determining squeal does not occur. sent5: the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur if the parochialness occurs. sent6: the fact that the trafficking pasha and the non-numericalness happens is wrong if the parochialness happens. sent7: that not the trafficking pasha but the numericalness occurs does not hold if the parochialness occurs. sent8: the fact that the atheist but not the excluding happens does not hold. sent9: the fact that the non-prescriptiveness and the non-psychotherapeuticness occurs is not true. sent10: the parochialness occurs if that the recognition does not occur hold. sent11: if the fact that the determining squeal but not the determining shackle occurs is incorrect then the recognition does not occur. sent12: if the trafficking pasha does not occur then that the determining squeal occurs but the determining shackle does not occur is incorrect. sent13: the numericalness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the numericalness does not occur and the trafficking pasha does not occur does not hold then the uncloaking does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the parochialness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur.; assump2 -> int1: the trafficking pasha does not occur.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the determining squeal occurs but the determining shackle does not occur does not hold.; sent11 & int2 -> int3: the recognition does not occur.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: the parochialness does not occur.; assump1 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: that the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur does not hold.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the uncloaking does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = if the parochialness occurs the fact that that the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur is incorrect hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that not the trafficking pasha but the numericalness occurs is wrong. sent2: the parochialness does not occur if the recognition does not occur. sent3: that the magic does not occur and the emergency does not occur is wrong. sent4: the recognition does not occur if the determining squeal does not occur. sent5: the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur if the parochialness occurs. sent6: the fact that the trafficking pasha and the non-numericalness happens is wrong if the parochialness happens. sent7: that not the trafficking pasha but the numericalness occurs does not hold if the parochialness occurs. sent8: the fact that the atheist but not the excluding happens does not hold. sent9: the fact that the non-prescriptiveness and the non-psychotherapeuticness occurs is not true. sent10: the parochialness occurs if that the recognition does not occur hold. sent11: if the fact that the determining squeal but not the determining shackle occurs is incorrect then the recognition does not occur. sent12: if the trafficking pasha does not occur then that the determining squeal occurs but the determining shackle does not occur is incorrect. sent13: the numericalness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that the numericalness does not occur and the trafficking pasha does not occur does not hold then the uncloaking does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the parochialness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur.; assump2 -> int1: the trafficking pasha does not occur.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the determining squeal occurs but the determining shackle does not occur does not hold.; sent11 & int2 -> int3: the recognition does not occur.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: the parochialness does not occur.; assump1 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: that the trafficking pasha does not occur and the numericalness does not occur does not hold.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__