the eruptiveness happens.
sent1: the eruptiveness does not occur if the fact that the consternating Kwa does not occur but the masterstroke happens is not right. sent2: if the sericulturalness happens and the consternating squill happens then the consternating reciprocity does not occur. sent3: if that either the consternating reciprocity or the consternating squill or both occurs does not hold then the hematopoieticness does not occur. sent4: if either the enterprise does not occur or the masterstroke occurs or both then the consternating Kwa does not occur. sent5: the sericulturalness and the hematopoieticness happens. sent6: if the fact that both the enterprise and the non-wettingness happens is not right the fact that the enterprise does not occur is true. sent7: if the journalism does not occur then the fact that the enterprise occurs and the wettingness does not occur is not true. sent8: the hematopoieticness occurs. sent9: if the consternating squill does not occur then that the consternating Kwa does not occur and the masterstroke happens is wrong. sent10: that the eruptiveness happens and the sericulturalness happens is brought about by the non-hematopoieticness. sent11: the consternating reciprocity happens.
sent5 -> int1: the sericulturalness occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the consternating squill happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the sericulturalness happens and the consternating squill occurs.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the consternating reciprocity does not occur.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the consternating squill does not occur.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: that the consternating Kwa does not occur but the masterstroke happens is wrong.; int6 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the eruptiveness occurs.
$hypothesis$ = the eruptiveness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the eruptiveness does not occur if the fact that the consternating Kwa does not occur but the masterstroke happens is not right. sent2: if the sericulturalness happens and the consternating squill happens then the consternating reciprocity does not occur. sent3: if that either the consternating reciprocity or the consternating squill or both occurs does not hold then the hematopoieticness does not occur. sent4: if either the enterprise does not occur or the masterstroke occurs or both then the consternating Kwa does not occur. sent5: the sericulturalness and the hematopoieticness happens. sent6: if the fact that both the enterprise and the non-wettingness happens is not right the fact that the enterprise does not occur is true. sent7: if the journalism does not occur then the fact that the enterprise occurs and the wettingness does not occur is not true. sent8: the hematopoieticness occurs. sent9: if the consternating squill does not occur then that the consternating Kwa does not occur and the masterstroke happens is wrong. sent10: that the eruptiveness happens and the sericulturalness happens is brought about by the non-hematopoieticness. sent11: the consternating reciprocity happens. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: the sericulturalness occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the consternating squill happens.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the sericulturalness happens and the consternating squill occurs.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the consternating reciprocity does not occur.; int3 & sent11 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the consternating squill does not occur.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: that the consternating Kwa does not occur but the masterstroke happens is wrong.; int6 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__