the plusness happens.
sent1: the consumerism happens. sent2: if the waiving does not occur the intuiting occurs and the self-assertion does not occur. sent3: the fact that the cornhusking happens is right. sent4: that the chew happens prevents that the supply happens. sent5: the self-assertion occurs if the corruptingness does not occur and the intuiting does not occur. sent6: the corruptingness does not occur. sent7: if that the corrupting happens is correct then the chewing but not the supplying happens. sent8: the plusness occurs if the self-assertion occurs. sent9: the waiving and the supply happens. sent10: the non-corruptingness is caused by that the chewing does not occur. sent11: that the chewing does not occur results in that the corrupting does not occur and the intuiting does not occur. sent12: the plusness does not occur if the chew but not the supplying happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chewing occurs.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the supply does not occur.; sent9 -> int2: the supplying happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the chew does not occur.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the corruptingness does not occur and the intuiting does not occur.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the self-assertion occurs.; int6 & sent8 -> hypothesis;
the plusness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the plusness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the consumerism happens. sent2: if the waiving does not occur the intuiting occurs and the self-assertion does not occur. sent3: the fact that the cornhusking happens is right. sent4: that the chew happens prevents that the supply happens. sent5: the self-assertion occurs if the corruptingness does not occur and the intuiting does not occur. sent6: the corruptingness does not occur. sent7: if that the corrupting happens is correct then the chewing but not the supplying happens. sent8: the plusness occurs if the self-assertion occurs. sent9: the waiving and the supply happens. sent10: the non-corruptingness is caused by that the chewing does not occur. sent11: that the chewing does not occur results in that the corrupting does not occur and the intuiting does not occur. sent12: the plusness does not occur if the chew but not the supplying happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chewing occurs.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the supply does not occur.; sent9 -> int2: the supplying happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the chew does not occur.; int4 & sent11 -> int5: the corruptingness does not occur and the intuiting does not occur.; int5 & sent5 -> int6: the self-assertion occurs.; int6 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__