if the fact that the mushroom does not occur and the quest does not occur is not true the propping Buddhist does not occur.
sent1: if the weaning coachbuilder does not occur then the fact that the propping L-dopa or the shockableness or both happens is wrong. sent2: if the diamagneticness occurs then both the non-Lincolnesqueness and the thrombosing clinician happens. sent3: if the fact that the propping L-dopa happens or the shockableness occurs or both is not correct the propping Buddhist does not occur. sent4: that either the viatication happens or the atrocity occurs or both is not right. sent5: that the artfulness occurs but the isentropicness does not occur is not true. sent6: that the weaning coachbuilder does not occur is caused by that the Lincolnesqueness does not occur but the thrombosing clinician happens. sent7: the mushrooming does not occur and the questing does not occur if the diamagneticness does not occur. sent8: that the mushroom occurs and the questing does not occur is triggered by the non-diamagneticness.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the diamagneticness does not occur.; sent7 & assump2 -> int1: the mushrooming does not occur and the questing does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the mushrooming does not occur and the questing does not occur is false.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the diamagneticness happens.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: not the Lincolnesqueness but the thrombosing clinician occurs.; sent6 & int4 -> int5: the weaning coachbuilder does not occur.; sent1 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the fact that the propping L-dopa occurs and/or the shockableness happens is not incorrect is false.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the propping Buddhist does not occur.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the mushroom does not occur and the quest does not occur is not true the propping Buddhist does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the weaning coachbuilder does not occur then the fact that the propping L-dopa or the shockableness or both happens is wrong. sent2: if the diamagneticness occurs then both the non-Lincolnesqueness and the thrombosing clinician happens. sent3: if the fact that the propping L-dopa happens or the shockableness occurs or both is not correct the propping Buddhist does not occur. sent4: that either the viatication happens or the atrocity occurs or both is not right. sent5: that the artfulness occurs but the isentropicness does not occur is not true. sent6: that the weaning coachbuilder does not occur is caused by that the Lincolnesqueness does not occur but the thrombosing clinician happens. sent7: the mushrooming does not occur and the questing does not occur if the diamagneticness does not occur. sent8: that the mushroom occurs and the questing does not occur is triggered by the non-diamagneticness. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the diamagneticness does not occur.; sent7 & assump2 -> int1: the mushrooming does not occur and the questing does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the mushrooming does not occur and the questing does not occur is false.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the diamagneticness happens.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: not the Lincolnesqueness but the thrombosing clinician occurs.; sent6 & int4 -> int5: the weaning coachbuilder does not occur.; sent1 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the fact that the propping L-dopa occurs and/or the shockableness happens is not incorrect is false.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the propping Buddhist does not occur.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__