the veto occurs if the reward happens.
sent1: if the damascening does not occur and the rewarding does not occur then the remand does not occur. sent2: the aesculapianness but not the unsinkableness happens if the aggressiveness does not occur. sent3: that the reward does not occur is caused by that the sugariness happens or the remand occurs or both. sent4: that the sugariness but not the discriminating happens is brought about by the veto. sent5: the damascene does not occur and the reward does not occur if the hydrophilicness does not occur. sent6: that the remand happens leads to that the rewarding does not occur. sent7: the discriminating does not occur if the vetoing does not occur. sent8: the fact that the bumpiness but not the bastinadoing auger happens is correct. sent9: the sugariness happens but the discriminatingness does not occur if the vetoing does not occur. sent10: the discriminating does not occur. sent11: the imperialisticness does not occur if the shunning fritter happens.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the rewarding occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the veto does not occur.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the sugariness but not the discriminating happens.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the sugariness occurs is correct.; int2 -> int3: the sugariness happens or the remand occurs or both.; sent3 & int3 -> int4: the reward does not occur.; assump2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the veto occurs.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the auspice happens.
$hypothesis$ = the veto occurs if the reward happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the damascening does not occur and the rewarding does not occur then the remand does not occur. sent2: the aesculapianness but not the unsinkableness happens if the aggressiveness does not occur. sent3: that the reward does not occur is caused by that the sugariness happens or the remand occurs or both. sent4: that the sugariness but not the discriminating happens is brought about by the veto. sent5: the damascene does not occur and the reward does not occur if the hydrophilicness does not occur. sent6: that the remand happens leads to that the rewarding does not occur. sent7: the discriminating does not occur if the vetoing does not occur. sent8: the fact that the bumpiness but not the bastinadoing auger happens is correct. sent9: the sugariness happens but the discriminatingness does not occur if the vetoing does not occur. sent10: the discriminating does not occur. sent11: the imperialisticness does not occur if the shunning fritter happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the rewarding occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the veto does not occur.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the sugariness but not the discriminating happens.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the sugariness occurs is correct.; int2 -> int3: the sugariness happens or the remand occurs or both.; sent3 & int3 -> int4: the reward does not occur.; assump2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the veto occurs.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__