the fact that that that the vulgarization does not occur and the dousing occurs hold does not hold if the misdemeanor occurs is not right.
sent1: that the vulgarization does not occur but the dousing occurs is not correct if the gladiatorialness does not occur. sent2: that the vulgarization and the dousing happens does not hold. sent3: that not the errand but the calisthenicness happens is false if the umbelliformness does not occur. sent4: the vulgarization does not occur and the dousing occurs. sent5: the urticating Kyushu happens if the caffeinicness happens. sent6: if the gladiatorialness does not occur the fact that the vulgarization happens and the dousing occurs is not true. sent7: the caffeinicness occurs. sent8: the fact that the clatter happens and the brassiness occurs is not right if the Handelianness occurs. sent9: the non-gladiatorialness is triggered by that the urticating Kyushu and the misdemeanor occurs.
sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the urticating Kyushu happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the misdemeanor occurs is right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the urticating Kyushu occurs and the misdemeanor happens.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the fact that the gladiatorialness does not occur is right.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: that the vulgarization does not occur but the dousing happens is wrong.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that that that the vulgarization does not occur and the dousing occurs hold does not hold if the misdemeanor occurs is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the vulgarization does not occur but the dousing occurs is not correct if the gladiatorialness does not occur. sent2: that the vulgarization and the dousing happens does not hold. sent3: that not the errand but the calisthenicness happens is false if the umbelliformness does not occur. sent4: the vulgarization does not occur and the dousing occurs. sent5: the urticating Kyushu happens if the caffeinicness happens. sent6: if the gladiatorialness does not occur the fact that the vulgarization happens and the dousing occurs is not true. sent7: the caffeinicness occurs. sent8: the fact that the clatter happens and the brassiness occurs is not right if the Handelianness occurs. sent9: the non-gladiatorialness is triggered by that the urticating Kyushu and the misdemeanor occurs. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the urticating Kyushu happens.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the misdemeanor occurs is right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the urticating Kyushu occurs and the misdemeanor happens.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the fact that the gladiatorialness does not occur is right.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: that the vulgarization does not occur but the dousing happens is wrong.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__