that that the solemnizing hydration does not occur is prevented by that the tort occurs is not true.
sent1: if the scream does not occur that the solemnizing luff and the non-convenientness occurs does not hold. sent2: the solemnizing Taracahitian does not occur if the hatefulness occurs or the Incarnation happens or both. sent3: if that the solemnizing luff happens and the convenientness does not occur is not right the solemnizing hydration occurs. sent4: if the convenientness happens then the solemnizing hydration occurs. sent5: the divergentness does not occur. sent6: if the depravity does not occur then the solemnizing luff happens and the solemnizing hydration happens. sent7: if the fact that the scream does not occur is not incorrect that both the solemnizing luff and the convenientness happens does not hold. sent8: that the tort occurs is brought about by that the screaming occurs or that the rhonchus happens or both. sent9: the dietariness does not occur. sent10: that the tort does not occur hold if the rhonchus occurs. sent11: if that the tort and the non-convenientness happens is not true the rhonchus does not occur. sent12: that the solemnizing luff happens and the convenientness occurs does not hold. sent13: the stratification occurs. sent14: that the tort happens is prevented by that the scream happens and/or the rhonchus.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the screaming occurs.; assump2 -> int1: either the screaming or the rhonchus or both occurs.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the tort does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tort happens.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the scream does not occur.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that the solemnizing luff occurs but the convenientness does not occur does not hold.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the solemnizing hydration occurs.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the Victorian occurs.
$hypothesis$ = that that the solemnizing hydration does not occur is prevented by that the tort occurs is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scream does not occur that the solemnizing luff and the non-convenientness occurs does not hold. sent2: the solemnizing Taracahitian does not occur if the hatefulness occurs or the Incarnation happens or both. sent3: if that the solemnizing luff happens and the convenientness does not occur is not right the solemnizing hydration occurs. sent4: if the convenientness happens then the solemnizing hydration occurs. sent5: the divergentness does not occur. sent6: if the depravity does not occur then the solemnizing luff happens and the solemnizing hydration happens. sent7: if the fact that the scream does not occur is not incorrect that both the solemnizing luff and the convenientness happens does not hold. sent8: that the tort occurs is brought about by that the screaming occurs or that the rhonchus happens or both. sent9: the dietariness does not occur. sent10: that the tort does not occur hold if the rhonchus occurs. sent11: if that the tort and the non-convenientness happens is not true the rhonchus does not occur. sent12: that the solemnizing luff happens and the convenientness occurs does not hold. sent13: the stratification occurs. sent14: that the tort happens is prevented by that the scream happens and/or the rhonchus. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the screaming occurs.; assump2 -> int1: either the screaming or the rhonchus or both occurs.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the tort does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tort happens.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the scream does not occur.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the fact that the solemnizing luff occurs but the convenientness does not occur does not hold.; int5 & sent3 -> int6: the solemnizing hydration occurs.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__