that not the sponsorship but the drinking epithalamium occurs is not right.
sent1: the nip happens. sent2: the uncooperativeness does not occur. sent3: the nipping occurs if that the naught does not occur is not incorrect. sent4: that the sponsorship does not occur is caused by that the mensalness occurs or the drinking executive occurs or both. sent5: if the naught does not occur then the drinking epithalamium and the nip occurs. sent6: that the naught happens and the off-lineness happens is wrong. sent7: the landfall does not occur. sent8: the sponsorship does not occur if the fact that the drinking executive occurs is correct. sent9: the drinking Pyrus occurs. sent10: the intelligibleness occurs if that the fact that both the Chilean and the non-intelligibleness happens is not false is not correct. sent11: the hexangularness happens if the drinking touristed does not occur. sent12: if the fact that the naught occurs and the off-lineness occurs is incorrect the naught does not occur. sent13: that both the Chileanness and the unintelligibleness occurs is false if the drinking executive does not occur. sent14: the Chilean and the drinking Pyrus occurs. sent15: if that both the non-uncooperativeness and the mensalness occurs does not hold the Chilean does not occur. sent16: the fact that the uncooperativeness and the mensalness happens does not hold. sent17: that the naught and the whiplash happens is caused by that the off-lineness does not occur. sent18: if the drinking Pyrus does not occur then the drinking epithalamium does not occur. sent19: the uncooperativeness leads to the non-Chileanness. sent20: if the whiplash occurs that the naught does not occur and the nip does not occur does not hold. sent21: that the drinking Pyrus does not occur leads to that the drinking executive occurs and the Chileanness happens. sent22: if the drinking executive happens then that not the sponsorship but the drinking epithalamium occurs is not correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that both the non-uncooperativeness and the mensalness occurs is incorrect is correct.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the Chilean does not occur.; sent14 -> int2: the Chilean happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the uncooperativeness does not occur and the mensalness occurs.; int4 -> int5: that the mensalness occurs is not incorrect.; int5 -> int6: the mensalness occurs and/or the drinking executive occurs.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the sponsorship does not occur.; sent12 & sent6 -> int8: the fact that the naught does not occur is not wrong.; sent5 & int8 -> int9: the drinking epithalamium and the nip occurs.; int9 -> int10: the drinking epithalamium happens.; int7 & int10 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the sponsorship does not occur and the drinking epithalamium happens is wrong.
$hypothesis$ = that not the sponsorship but the drinking epithalamium occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the nip happens. sent2: the uncooperativeness does not occur. sent3: the nipping occurs if that the naught does not occur is not incorrect. sent4: that the sponsorship does not occur is caused by that the mensalness occurs or the drinking executive occurs or both. sent5: if the naught does not occur then the drinking epithalamium and the nip occurs. sent6: that the naught happens and the off-lineness happens is wrong. sent7: the landfall does not occur. sent8: the sponsorship does not occur if the fact that the drinking executive occurs is correct. sent9: the drinking Pyrus occurs. sent10: the intelligibleness occurs if that the fact that both the Chilean and the non-intelligibleness happens is not false is not correct. sent11: the hexangularness happens if the drinking touristed does not occur. sent12: if the fact that the naught occurs and the off-lineness occurs is incorrect the naught does not occur. sent13: that both the Chileanness and the unintelligibleness occurs is false if the drinking executive does not occur. sent14: the Chilean and the drinking Pyrus occurs. sent15: if that both the non-uncooperativeness and the mensalness occurs does not hold the Chilean does not occur. sent16: the fact that the uncooperativeness and the mensalness happens does not hold. sent17: that the naught and the whiplash happens is caused by that the off-lineness does not occur. sent18: if the drinking Pyrus does not occur then the drinking epithalamium does not occur. sent19: the uncooperativeness leads to the non-Chileanness. sent20: if the whiplash occurs that the naught does not occur and the nip does not occur does not hold. sent21: that the drinking Pyrus does not occur leads to that the drinking executive occurs and the Chileanness happens. sent22: if the drinking executive happens then that not the sponsorship but the drinking epithalamium occurs is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that both the non-uncooperativeness and the mensalness occurs is incorrect is correct.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the Chilean does not occur.; sent14 -> int2: the Chilean happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the uncooperativeness does not occur and the mensalness occurs.; int4 -> int5: that the mensalness occurs is not incorrect.; int5 -> int6: the mensalness occurs and/or the drinking executive occurs.; int6 & sent4 -> int7: the sponsorship does not occur.; sent12 & sent6 -> int8: the fact that the naught does not occur is not wrong.; sent5 & int8 -> int9: the drinking epithalamium and the nip occurs.; int9 -> int10: the drinking epithalamium happens.; int7 & int10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__