that if the regenerateness happens then the expensing trash does not occur and/or the doting occurs is not right.
sent1: the regenerateness does not occur if both the vocativeness and the non-ecclesiasticalness occurs. sent2: if the reopening Schistosoma and/or the veto happens then the electrification does not occur. sent3: that the expensing trash does not occur and/or that the doting happens is triggered by that the electrification does not occur. sent4: the expensing trash happens and/or the doting occurs if the regenerating happens. sent5: the unsupportiveness happens and/or the declarativeness happens. sent6: if the fact that the vocativeness but not the ecclesiasticalness occurs does not hold the reopening Schistosoma occurs. sent7: if the fact that both the reopening Schistosoma and the non-regenerateness occurs is not correct then the incontinentness happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the regenerateness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that both the vocative and the non-ecclesiasticalness occurs.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the regenerating does not occur.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the vocative happens but the ecclesiasticalness does not occur is wrong.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the reopening Schistosoma occurs.; int4 -> int5: the reopening Schistosoma occurs and/or the veto happens.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the electrification does not occur.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the expensing trash does not occur and/or the doting happens.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
the incontinentness occurs.
$hypothesis$ = that if the regenerateness happens then the expensing trash does not occur and/or the doting occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the regenerateness does not occur if both the vocativeness and the non-ecclesiasticalness occurs. sent2: if the reopening Schistosoma and/or the veto happens then the electrification does not occur. sent3: that the expensing trash does not occur and/or that the doting happens is triggered by that the electrification does not occur. sent4: the expensing trash happens and/or the doting occurs if the regenerating happens. sent5: the unsupportiveness happens and/or the declarativeness happens. sent6: if the fact that the vocativeness but not the ecclesiasticalness occurs does not hold the reopening Schistosoma occurs. sent7: if the fact that both the reopening Schistosoma and the non-regenerateness occurs is not correct then the incontinentness happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the regenerateness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that both the vocative and the non-ecclesiasticalness occurs.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the regenerating does not occur.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that the vocative happens but the ecclesiasticalness does not occur is wrong.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the reopening Schistosoma occurs.; int4 -> int5: the reopening Schistosoma occurs and/or the veto happens.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: the electrification does not occur.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the expensing trash does not occur and/or the doting happens.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__