that that the napping does not occur and the impeding stingray occurs is caused by the perseverating emptying is false.
sent1: that if the fact that the prandialness but not the finale occurs is not right then the finale occurs hold. sent2: the impeding wallop does not occur. sent3: the suggesting capitalism happens. sent4: both the golfing and the self-gratification occurs if the banking Whitman happens. sent5: the napping occurs and the jamming occurs if the impeding pluralist does not occur. sent6: that the impeding stingray does not occur and the perseverating emptying does not occur prevents that the suggesting capitalism occurs. sent7: that the suggesting capitalism does not occur yields that the perseverating risk and the Prakriticness happens. sent8: the vitality occurs. sent9: if the incoherentness happens the impeding stingray does not occur and the perseverating emptying does not occur. sent10: that not the nap but the impeding stingray occurs is brought about by the non-prandialness. sent11: if the napping happens then that the prandialness occurs and the finale does not occur is not correct. sent12: both the Prakriticness and the suggesting capitalism occurs. sent13: if the rearmament does not occur the Tahitian happens and the banking installment occurs. sent14: that both the suggesting Cognac and the furnishing occurs if the ecclesiasticalness does not occur hold. sent15: the Dickensianness occurs. sent16: if both the Prakriticness and the prandialness occurs then the perseverating emptying does not occur. sent17: the napping and the impeding stingray occurs if the prandialness does not occur. sent18: if the Dickensianness occurs then the impeding pluralist does not occur. sent19: the impeding stingray is triggered by that the perseverating emptying happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the perseverating emptying occurs is correct.; sent12 -> int1: that the Prakriticness happens is correct.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the prandialness happens.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the Prakriticness happens and the prandialness occurs.; sent16 & int2 -> int3: the perseverating emptying does not occur.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the prandialness does not occur.; sent10 & int5 -> int6: the napping does not occur and the impeding stingray happens.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the finale and the perseverating risk occurs.
sent18 & sent15 -> int7: that the impeding pluralist does not occur hold.; sent5 & int7 -> int8: both the napping and the jamming occurs.; int8 -> int9: the nap happens.; sent11 & int9 -> int10: that the prandialness happens and the finale does not occur does not hold.; sent1 & int10 -> int11: the finale happens.;
$hypothesis$ = that that the napping does not occur and the impeding stingray occurs is caused by the perseverating emptying is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that if the fact that the prandialness but not the finale occurs is not right then the finale occurs hold. sent2: the impeding wallop does not occur. sent3: the suggesting capitalism happens. sent4: both the golfing and the self-gratification occurs if the banking Whitman happens. sent5: the napping occurs and the jamming occurs if the impeding pluralist does not occur. sent6: that the impeding stingray does not occur and the perseverating emptying does not occur prevents that the suggesting capitalism occurs. sent7: that the suggesting capitalism does not occur yields that the perseverating risk and the Prakriticness happens. sent8: the vitality occurs. sent9: if the incoherentness happens the impeding stingray does not occur and the perseverating emptying does not occur. sent10: that not the nap but the impeding stingray occurs is brought about by the non-prandialness. sent11: if the napping happens then that the prandialness occurs and the finale does not occur is not correct. sent12: both the Prakriticness and the suggesting capitalism occurs. sent13: if the rearmament does not occur the Tahitian happens and the banking installment occurs. sent14: that both the suggesting Cognac and the furnishing occurs if the ecclesiasticalness does not occur hold. sent15: the Dickensianness occurs. sent16: if both the Prakriticness and the prandialness occurs then the perseverating emptying does not occur. sent17: the napping and the impeding stingray occurs if the prandialness does not occur. sent18: if the Dickensianness occurs then the impeding pluralist does not occur. sent19: the impeding stingray is triggered by that the perseverating emptying happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the perseverating emptying occurs is correct.; sent12 -> int1: that the Prakriticness happens is correct.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the prandialness happens.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the Prakriticness happens and the prandialness occurs.; sent16 & int2 -> int3: the perseverating emptying does not occur.; assump1 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the prandialness does not occur.; sent10 & int5 -> int6: the napping does not occur and the impeding stingray happens.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__