that the trafficking match but not the halting happens does not hold.
sent1: if the dogmatizing brave occurs the fact that the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur is wrong. sent2: that the halting happens is prevented by that the determining eye does not occur. sent3: if the trafficking match does not occur the equilibration does not occur. sent4: either the ableism occurs or the determining eye occurs or both. sent5: the considerateness is prevented by that the accommodating does not occur. sent6: the dogmatizing brave occurs. sent7: the halting does not occur if the ableism occurs and/or the determining eye does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the biflagellateness occurs and the determining Bierce does not occur is incorrect then the biflagellateness does not occur. sent9: if the ableism does not occur the fact that that the determining eye does not occur and the dogmatizing brave does not occur is true is false. sent10: that the ableism does not occur is brought about by the non-biflagellateness. sent11: the ableism occurs and the biflagellateness happens. sent12: if the dogmatizing brave does not occur that the trafficking match happens and the halting does not occur is not correct. sent13: the fact that the biflagellateness occurs and the determining Bierce does not occur does not hold if the considerateness does not occur. sent14: if the trafficking match does not occur then the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur. sent15: the equilibration does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trafficking match does not occur.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur is not incorrect.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: that the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the trafficking match occurs is right.; sent11 -> int5: the ableism occurs.; int5 -> int6: either the ableism occurs or the determining eye does not occur or both.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the halting does not occur.; int4 & int7 -> hypothesis;
that the trafficking match but not the halting occurs is incorrect.
$hypothesis$ = that the trafficking match but not the halting happens does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dogmatizing brave occurs the fact that the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur is wrong. sent2: that the halting happens is prevented by that the determining eye does not occur. sent3: if the trafficking match does not occur the equilibration does not occur. sent4: either the ableism occurs or the determining eye occurs or both. sent5: the considerateness is prevented by that the accommodating does not occur. sent6: the dogmatizing brave occurs. sent7: the halting does not occur if the ableism occurs and/or the determining eye does not occur. sent8: if the fact that the biflagellateness occurs and the determining Bierce does not occur is incorrect then the biflagellateness does not occur. sent9: if the ableism does not occur the fact that that the determining eye does not occur and the dogmatizing brave does not occur is true is false. sent10: that the ableism does not occur is brought about by the non-biflagellateness. sent11: the ableism occurs and the biflagellateness happens. sent12: if the dogmatizing brave does not occur that the trafficking match happens and the halting does not occur is not correct. sent13: the fact that the biflagellateness occurs and the determining Bierce does not occur does not hold if the considerateness does not occur. sent14: if the trafficking match does not occur then the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur. sent15: the equilibration does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trafficking match does not occur.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur is not incorrect.; sent1 & sent6 -> int2: that the equilibration does not occur and the determining hustler does not occur is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the trafficking match occurs is right.; sent11 -> int5: the ableism occurs.; int5 -> int6: either the ableism occurs or the determining eye does not occur or both.; sent7 & int6 -> int7: the halting does not occur.; int4 & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__