that the looking bunchgrass happens causes that not the overtness but the phase-out happens.
sent1: if the fact that the non-overtness and the phase-out occurs is wrong the looking bunchgrass does not occur. sent2: that the looking bunchgrass happens and the slating happens is triggered by that the rustication does not occur. sent3: the fact that the range does not occur but the Flemishness occurs is incorrect if the slating occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the non-overtness and the phase-out occurs does not hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the looking bunchgrass does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the looking bunchgrass happens hold.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the non-overtness and the phase-out happens.; [assump2] & int3 -> hypothesis;
that the ranging does not occur and the Flemish occurs is incorrect.
$hypothesis$ = that the looking bunchgrass happens causes that not the overtness but the phase-out happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the non-overtness and the phase-out occurs is wrong the looking bunchgrass does not occur. sent2: that the looking bunchgrass happens and the slating happens is triggered by that the rustication does not occur. sent3: the fact that the range does not occur but the Flemishness occurs is incorrect if the slating occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the non-overtness and the phase-out occurs does not hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the looking bunchgrass does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the looking bunchgrass happens hold.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the non-overtness and the phase-out happens.; [assump2] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__