that the approbating proconsulship does not occur but the bonelessness happens is incorrect.
sent1: the approbating proconsulship does not occur if not the infusion but the explicitness occurs. sent2: the cloying Botaurus and the devolving occurs. sent3: if the volumetricness does not occur then the cloying Botaurus does not occur. sent4: the cloying Botaurus happens if the volumetricness does not occur. sent5: both the cloying Botaurus and the cloying radiomicrometer occurs if that the explicitness does not occur hold. sent6: the Browning happens. sent7: if the mire does not occur then the cloying Botaurus does not occur. sent8: that the devolving happens is not wrong. sent9: if both the non-nonruminantness and the non-brisantness happens then the devolving does not occur. sent10: if the infusion happens the volumetricness does not occur and/or the mire does not occur. sent11: if the Austrianness happens both the ruminantness and the non-brisantness occurs. sent12: that the explicitness happens hold. sent13: that the fact that the approbating proconsulship and the bonelessness occurs is wrong is correct if the devolving does not occur. sent14: the bonelessness happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the infusion occurs.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the volumetricness does not occur and/or the mire does not occur.; int1 & sent3 & sent7 -> int2: the cloying Botaurus does not occur.; sent2 -> int3: the cloying Botaurus occurs.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the infusion does not occur.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: the infusion does not occur but the explicitness occurs.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the approbating proconsulship does not occur.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the approbating proconsulship does not occur and the bonelessness occurs is incorrect.
 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the approbating proconsulship does not occur but the bonelessness happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the approbating proconsulship does not occur if not the infusion but the explicitness occurs. sent2: the cloying Botaurus and the devolving occurs. sent3: if the volumetricness does not occur then the cloying Botaurus does not occur. sent4: the cloying Botaurus happens if the volumetricness does not occur. sent5: both the cloying Botaurus and the cloying radiomicrometer occurs if that the explicitness does not occur hold. sent6: the Browning happens. sent7: if the mire does not occur then the cloying Botaurus does not occur. sent8: that the devolving happens is not wrong. sent9: if both the non-nonruminantness and the non-brisantness happens then the devolving does not occur. sent10: if the infusion happens the volumetricness does not occur and/or the mire does not occur. sent11: if the Austrianness happens both the ruminantness and the non-brisantness occurs. sent12: that the explicitness happens hold. sent13: that the fact that the approbating proconsulship and the bonelessness occurs is wrong is correct if the devolving does not occur. sent14: the bonelessness happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the infusion occurs.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the volumetricness does not occur and/or the mire does not occur.; int1 & sent3 & sent7 -> int2: the cloying Botaurus does not occur.; sent2 -> int3: the cloying Botaurus occurs.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the infusion does not occur.; int5 & sent12 -> int6: the infusion does not occur but the explicitness occurs.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the approbating proconsulship does not occur.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__