the fact that that the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur is triggered by that the unpacking happens is not correct.
sent1: the outerness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur is false the unpacking does not occur. sent3: the emmetropicness happens but the emasculation does not occur. sent4: that the fox-trot does not occur and the abjuring candlepower does not occur is not correct. sent5: the emmetropicness occurs. sent6: if the fact that that the emmetropicness but not the emasculation occurs is wrong is correct then the fact that the unpacking does not occur is not incorrect. sent7: the pinking does not occur and the recoil does not occur. sent8: if that the stiffening does not occur and the abjuring XXX does not occur is false the cooling does not occur. sent9: the preserving pseudoscience does not occur and the icing does not occur if the blemishing polygamy happens. sent10: that the unpacking does not occur is caused by the emasculation. sent11: the disfigurement does not occur and the boarding does not occur. sent12: the unpacking does not occur if the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur. sent13: the fact that the non-emmetropicness and the emasculation happens is not right. sent14: the emasculation does not occur. sent15: if the unpacking occurs that the emasculation does not occur is not wrong. sent16: if the unpacking happens then the emmetropicness occurs but the emasculation does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur is incorrect.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the unpacking does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the unpacking happens.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur.; [assump2] & int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur is triggered by that the unpacking happens is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the outerness does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur is false the unpacking does not occur. sent3: the emmetropicness happens but the emasculation does not occur. sent4: that the fox-trot does not occur and the abjuring candlepower does not occur is not correct. sent5: the emmetropicness occurs. sent6: if the fact that that the emmetropicness but not the emasculation occurs is wrong is correct then the fact that the unpacking does not occur is not incorrect. sent7: the pinking does not occur and the recoil does not occur. sent8: if that the stiffening does not occur and the abjuring XXX does not occur is false the cooling does not occur. sent9: the preserving pseudoscience does not occur and the icing does not occur if the blemishing polygamy happens. sent10: that the unpacking does not occur is caused by the emasculation. sent11: the disfigurement does not occur and the boarding does not occur. sent12: the unpacking does not occur if the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur. sent13: the fact that the non-emmetropicness and the emasculation happens is not right. sent14: the emasculation does not occur. sent15: if the unpacking occurs that the emasculation does not occur is not wrong. sent16: if the unpacking happens then the emmetropicness occurs but the emasculation does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur is incorrect.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the unpacking does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the unpacking happens.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the emmetropicness does not occur and the emasculation does not occur.; [assump2] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__