the refuge does not occur.
sent1: either the captainship or the lunching ostracism or both happens. sent2: if the refuge does not occur the fact that the captainship happens and/or the lunching ostracism does not occur is not true. sent3: the fantasizing occurs. sent4: if the refuge does not occur then the lunching ostracism occurs. sent5: that the Simonizing on-license does not occur prevents that the lunching trombone occurs. sent6: that the refuge does not occur is caused by that the lunching ZIP occurs. sent7: the lunching ZIP happens and the shapeliness occurs if that the nonslipperiness happens is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the statuary and the adsorbableness occurs does not hold if that the lunching trombone does not occur hold. sent9: the bimodalness does not occur and the Simonizing on-license does not occur if the heating shuttered does not occur. sent10: the captainship happens. sent11: if the counteroffensive does not occur then not the heating shuttered but the brazenness happens. sent12: the lunching ostracism happens. sent13: that the inspection does not occur yields that the stomatousness does not occur and the counteroffensive does not occur. sent14: that the shapeliness occurs but the lunching ZIP does not occur is brought about by that the nonslipperiness happens. sent15: if that the statuariness and the adsorbableness occurs does not hold then the nonslipperiness does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the refuge does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the captainship occurs and/or the lunching ostracism does not occur is wrong.; sent10 -> int2: either the captainship happens or the lunching ostracism does not occur or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the refuge does not occur is right.
$hypothesis$ = the refuge does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: either the captainship or the lunching ostracism or both happens. sent2: if the refuge does not occur the fact that the captainship happens and/or the lunching ostracism does not occur is not true. sent3: the fantasizing occurs. sent4: if the refuge does not occur then the lunching ostracism occurs. sent5: that the Simonizing on-license does not occur prevents that the lunching trombone occurs. sent6: that the refuge does not occur is caused by that the lunching ZIP occurs. sent7: the lunching ZIP happens and the shapeliness occurs if that the nonslipperiness happens is incorrect. sent8: the fact that both the statuary and the adsorbableness occurs does not hold if that the lunching trombone does not occur hold. sent9: the bimodalness does not occur and the Simonizing on-license does not occur if the heating shuttered does not occur. sent10: the captainship happens. sent11: if the counteroffensive does not occur then not the heating shuttered but the brazenness happens. sent12: the lunching ostracism happens. sent13: that the inspection does not occur yields that the stomatousness does not occur and the counteroffensive does not occur. sent14: that the shapeliness occurs but the lunching ZIP does not occur is brought about by that the nonslipperiness happens. sent15: if that the statuariness and the adsorbableness occurs does not hold then the nonslipperiness does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the refuge does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the captainship occurs and/or the lunching ostracism does not occur is wrong.; sent10 -> int2: either the captainship happens or the lunching ostracism does not occur or both.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__