that the will-o'-the-wisp occurs is not incorrect.
sent1: the fact that the smocking measurement occurs and the dilapidating canter happens is incorrect. sent2: the will-o'-the-wisp happens if the palatableness happens. sent3: both the non-abranchiateness and the congruousness occurs. sent4: not the fencing but the spilling indigestibility happens. sent5: the fencing occurs if the smocking measurement happens. sent6: if the fact that the turnover but not the palatableness happens is not true the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent7: if the admission does not occur that not the smocking measurement but the dilapidating canter occurs does not hold. sent8: if both the craziness and the relinquishment happens then the Estonian does not occur. sent9: the turnover does not occur but the spilling indigestibility occurs if the lyricing does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the fingerprinting and the non-heterotrophicness happens is wrong then the dicarboxylicness happens. sent11: the minusness does not occur. sent12: if the admission does not occur then that the smocking measurement and the dilapidating canter happens is not true. sent13: that both the turnover and the palatableness occurs is not correct if the transition does not occur. sent14: that the turnover occurs and the palatableness occurs is incorrect. sent15: that the rain happens is right. sent16: the fact that the contention happens is not incorrect. sent17: if the main happens the lyricness does not occur. sent18: the spilling indigestibility happens. sent19: if not the turnover but the spilling indigestibility occurs that the palatableness does not occur is not false. sent20: the dilapidating canter does not occur if the fencing and the smocking measurement occurs. sent21: the fencing happens if that the smocking measurement does not occur but the dilapidating canter happens does not hold. sent22: that the admission does not occur is brought about by that both the transition and the contention happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the transitioning occurs.; assump1 & sent16 -> int1: both the transitioning and the contention occurs.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the admission does not occur.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the smocking measurement does not occur but the dilapidating canter happens does not hold.; int3 & sent21 -> int4: the fencing occurs.; sent4 -> int5: the fencing does not occur.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the transitioning does not occur is correct.;
the will-o'-the-wisp does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = that the will-o'-the-wisp occurs is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the smocking measurement occurs and the dilapidating canter happens is incorrect. sent2: the will-o'-the-wisp happens if the palatableness happens. sent3: both the non-abranchiateness and the congruousness occurs. sent4: not the fencing but the spilling indigestibility happens. sent5: the fencing occurs if the smocking measurement happens. sent6: if the fact that the turnover but not the palatableness happens is not true the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent7: if the admission does not occur that not the smocking measurement but the dilapidating canter occurs does not hold. sent8: if both the craziness and the relinquishment happens then the Estonian does not occur. sent9: the turnover does not occur but the spilling indigestibility occurs if the lyricing does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the fingerprinting and the non-heterotrophicness happens is wrong then the dicarboxylicness happens. sent11: the minusness does not occur. sent12: if the admission does not occur then that the smocking measurement and the dilapidating canter happens is not true. sent13: that both the turnover and the palatableness occurs is not correct if the transition does not occur. sent14: that the turnover occurs and the palatableness occurs is incorrect. sent15: that the rain happens is right. sent16: the fact that the contention happens is not incorrect. sent17: if the main happens the lyricness does not occur. sent18: the spilling indigestibility happens. sent19: if not the turnover but the spilling indigestibility occurs that the palatableness does not occur is not false. sent20: the dilapidating canter does not occur if the fencing and the smocking measurement occurs. sent21: the fencing happens if that the smocking measurement does not occur but the dilapidating canter happens does not hold. sent22: that the admission does not occur is brought about by that both the transition and the contention happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the transitioning occurs.; assump1 & sent16 -> int1: both the transitioning and the contention occurs.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the admission does not occur.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the smocking measurement does not occur but the dilapidating canter happens does not hold.; int3 & sent21 -> int4: the fencing occurs.; sent4 -> int5: the fencing does not occur.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the transitioning does not occur is correct.; __UNKNOWN__