the fact that the repoting caucus and the intellectualness happens is not correct.
sent1: the asteroidalness does not occur if that the asteroidalness and the non-loticness happens is not true. sent2: the fact that the broadening does not occur and the accoutering Lamaism occurs is not correct if that the asteroidalness does not occur is not false. sent3: that the accoutering Lamaism does not occur causes that the repoting caucus and the non-nonintellectualness happens. sent4: the fact that the asteroidalness but not the loticness occurs is not correct. sent5: that the repoting caucus does not occur results in that not the accoutering Lamaism but the broadening happens. sent6: the switching occurs but the dentalness does not occur. sent7: the uncialness happens. sent8: that that that the repoting caucus and the intellectualness happens is right is false if the uncial does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the broadening does not occur is triggered by that the peronealness and the uncial occurs. sent10: that the peronealness happens is caused by that the switching happens but the dentalness does not occur. sent11: the nonpoliticalness does not occur if the fact that that both the uncial and the non-peronealness occurs hold is incorrect.
sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the peronealness happens.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the peronealness and the uncialness happens.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the broadening does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the accoutering Lamaism happens.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: not the broadening but the accoutering Lamaism occurs.; sent1 & sent4 -> int5: the asteroidalness does not occur.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: that the broadening does not occur but the accoutering Lamaism occurs is false.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fact that the accoutering Lamaism does not occur is right.; int8 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the nonpoliticalness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the repoting caucus and the intellectualness happens is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the asteroidalness does not occur if that the asteroidalness and the non-loticness happens is not true. sent2: the fact that the broadening does not occur and the accoutering Lamaism occurs is not correct if that the asteroidalness does not occur is not false. sent3: that the accoutering Lamaism does not occur causes that the repoting caucus and the non-nonintellectualness happens. sent4: the fact that the asteroidalness but not the loticness occurs is not correct. sent5: that the repoting caucus does not occur results in that not the accoutering Lamaism but the broadening happens. sent6: the switching occurs but the dentalness does not occur. sent7: the uncialness happens. sent8: that that that the repoting caucus and the intellectualness happens is right is false if the uncial does not occur is not wrong. sent9: that the broadening does not occur is triggered by that the peronealness and the uncial occurs. sent10: that the peronealness happens is caused by that the switching happens but the dentalness does not occur. sent11: the nonpoliticalness does not occur if the fact that that both the uncial and the non-peronealness occurs hold is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 & sent6 -> int1: the peronealness happens.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the peronealness and the uncialness happens.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the broadening does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the accoutering Lamaism happens.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: not the broadening but the accoutering Lamaism occurs.; sent1 & sent4 -> int5: the asteroidalness does not occur.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: that the broadening does not occur but the accoutering Lamaism occurs is false.; int4 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fact that the accoutering Lamaism does not occur is right.; int8 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__