the fact that the cupricness does not occur is not incorrect.
sent1: the cupricness happens if the stainableness does not occur and the follow-through does not occur. sent2: the cupricness does not occur if the follow-through does not occur. sent3: the follow-through does not occur if the Carmeliteness occurs. sent4: if the euphoniousness does not occur the associating happens and the nonwashableness occurs. sent5: the associating happens and the stainableness occurs. sent6: if that the Carmelite does not occur but the rejoinder occurs is wrong the follow-through does not occur. sent7: that the non-Carmeliteness and the rejoinder occurs triggers that the stainableness does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the Carmelite but the rejoinder occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the stainableness does not occur.; sent5 -> int2: the stainableness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that not the Carmeliteness but the rejoinder occurs is false.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the fact that the follow-through does not occur is not wrong.; int5 & sent2 -> hypothesis;
the cupricness occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the cupricness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the cupricness happens if the stainableness does not occur and the follow-through does not occur. sent2: the cupricness does not occur if the follow-through does not occur. sent3: the follow-through does not occur if the Carmeliteness occurs. sent4: if the euphoniousness does not occur the associating happens and the nonwashableness occurs. sent5: the associating happens and the stainableness occurs. sent6: if that the Carmelite does not occur but the rejoinder occurs is wrong the follow-through does not occur. sent7: that the non-Carmeliteness and the rejoinder occurs triggers that the stainableness does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the Carmelite but the rejoinder occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the stainableness does not occur.; sent5 -> int2: the stainableness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that not the Carmeliteness but the rejoinder occurs is false.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: the fact that the follow-through does not occur is not wrong.; int5 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__