the yeastiness happens.
sent1: the obligation occurs. sent2: that the scoffing cross-classification does not occur yields that the obligation does not occur. sent3: if the ruminating does not occur that the scoffing foot-lambert and the devisal occurs is not correct. sent4: if that the scoffing cross-classification and the refutation happens is incorrect then the obligation does not occur. sent5: the tracheostomy occurs. sent6: the undependableness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the exalting semivowel but not the scoffing cross-classification occurs is incorrect if the refutation occurs. sent8: that the refutation does not occur is caused by that the MPEG does not occur and the obligation does not occur. sent9: the fact that the yeastiness does not occur and the tracheostomy does not occur does not hold if the exalting semivowel occurs. sent10: that both the design and the rheologicness happens prevents that the exalting pretrial happens. sent11: that the exalting semivowel occurs is prevented by that the yeastiness and the tracheostomy occurs. sent12: that both the scoffing cross-classification and the refutation occurs is wrong if the exalting semivowel does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the yeastiness happens.; assump1 & sent5 -> int1: both the yeastiness and the tracheostomy occurs.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the exalting semivowel does not occur.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: that the scoffing cross-classification and the refutation happens is incorrect.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the obligation does not occur.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the scoffing foot-lambert does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the yeastiness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the obligation occurs. sent2: that the scoffing cross-classification does not occur yields that the obligation does not occur. sent3: if the ruminating does not occur that the scoffing foot-lambert and the devisal occurs is not correct. sent4: if that the scoffing cross-classification and the refutation happens is incorrect then the obligation does not occur. sent5: the tracheostomy occurs. sent6: the undependableness does not occur. sent7: the fact that the exalting semivowel but not the scoffing cross-classification occurs is incorrect if the refutation occurs. sent8: that the refutation does not occur is caused by that the MPEG does not occur and the obligation does not occur. sent9: the fact that the yeastiness does not occur and the tracheostomy does not occur does not hold if the exalting semivowel occurs. sent10: that both the design and the rheologicness happens prevents that the exalting pretrial happens. sent11: that the exalting semivowel occurs is prevented by that the yeastiness and the tracheostomy occurs. sent12: that both the scoffing cross-classification and the refutation occurs is wrong if the exalting semivowel does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the yeastiness happens.; assump1 & sent5 -> int1: both the yeastiness and the tracheostomy occurs.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the exalting semivowel does not occur.; int2 & sent12 -> int3: that the scoffing cross-classification and the refutation happens is incorrect.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: the obligation does not occur.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__