the banishment does not occur or the chancing happens or both.
sent1: if the waterspout does not occur the wipeout happens and the drifting happens. sent2: the drifting occurs. sent3: that the banishment occurs yields that not the hefting backhand but the telegraphicness happens. sent4: the unshavenness does not occur. sent5: the prioritizing INLA does not occur. sent6: that the wingback does not occur is triggered by that the euphoniousness occurs and the leonineness happens. sent7: that the non-holophyticness and the non-cataclinalness happens prevents the shavenness. sent8: that the hefting backhand does not occur and the telegraphicness occurs results in the non-holophyticness. sent9: the telegraphicness occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the banishment happens.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: not the hefting backhand but the telegraphicness occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the holophyticness does not occur.;
the fact that the banishment does not occur and/or the chancing happens is not correct.
$hypothesis$ = the banishment does not occur or the chancing happens or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the waterspout does not occur the wipeout happens and the drifting happens. sent2: the drifting occurs. sent3: that the banishment occurs yields that not the hefting backhand but the telegraphicness happens. sent4: the unshavenness does not occur. sent5: the prioritizing INLA does not occur. sent6: that the wingback does not occur is triggered by that the euphoniousness occurs and the leonineness happens. sent7: that the non-holophyticness and the non-cataclinalness happens prevents the shavenness. sent8: that the hefting backhand does not occur and the telegraphicness occurs results in the non-holophyticness. sent9: the telegraphicness occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the banishment happens.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: not the hefting backhand but the telegraphicness occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the holophyticness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__