that if the reddening clansman does not occur then the fact that the arming happens is right is not true.
sent1: if the imperative happens then the reddening clansman happens. sent2: the arm occurs if that the reddening clansman occurs is not incorrect. sent3: that the imperativeness happens and the seraphicness occurs does not hold. sent4: the fact that the cachinnating occurs hold. sent5: if the fact that the fact that both the non-imperativeness and the seraphicness happens hold is not correct the reddening clansman happens. sent6: the imperative does not occur. sent7: that either the reddening clansman does not occur or the arming does not occur or both is not correct if the parallax occurs. sent8: if the fact that the fact that the reddening clansman does not occur and/or the arm does not occur is not incorrect is not correct then the fact that the unscrambling occurs is not true. sent9: the getting Shaw does not occur. sent10: that the imperativeness and the seraphicness happens prevents that the arming does not occur. sent11: if not the imperative but the seraphicness occurs the arming occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that both the non-imperativeness and the seraphicness occurs is false.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the reddening clansman occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the reddening clansman does not occur.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that both the non-imperativeness and the seraphicness occurs is not wrong.; sent11 & int3 -> int4: the arm occurs.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the unscrambling does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = that if the reddening clansman does not occur then the fact that the arming happens is right is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the imperative happens then the reddening clansman happens. sent2: the arm occurs if that the reddening clansman occurs is not incorrect. sent3: that the imperativeness happens and the seraphicness occurs does not hold. sent4: the fact that the cachinnating occurs hold. sent5: if the fact that the fact that both the non-imperativeness and the seraphicness happens hold is not correct the reddening clansman happens. sent6: the imperative does not occur. sent7: that either the reddening clansman does not occur or the arming does not occur or both is not correct if the parallax occurs. sent8: if the fact that the fact that the reddening clansman does not occur and/or the arm does not occur is not incorrect is not correct then the fact that the unscrambling occurs is not true. sent9: the getting Shaw does not occur. sent10: that the imperativeness and the seraphicness happens prevents that the arming does not occur. sent11: if not the imperative but the seraphicness occurs the arming occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that both the non-imperativeness and the seraphicness occurs is false.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the reddening clansman occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the reddening clansman does not occur.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that both the non-imperativeness and the seraphicness occurs is not wrong.; sent11 & int3 -> int4: the arm occurs.; [assump2] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__