if that the trafficking Formosan occurs hold not the vitrioling collective but the redirecting Cabombaceae occurs.
sent1: the fossilizing does not occur if both the non-Zolaesqueness and the tip-off occurs. sent2: if the Zolaesqueness occurs then the sabotage occurs. sent3: the sentencing happens. sent4: if that the nonpsychoactiveness happens and the vitrioling collective happens does not hold the fact that the vitrioling collective does not occur is true. sent5: if the demolishing does not occur then that the nonpsychoactiveness and the vitrioling collective happens is wrong. sent6: the redirecting satrap does not occur and the vitrioling Callirhoe does not occur. sent7: that the non-prefecturalness and the interstateness occurs triggers the non-aeromedicalness. sent8: if the sentencing happens then the aestheticsness happens. sent9: the demolishing does not occur if the redirecting satrap does not occur and the vitrioling Callirhoe does not occur. sent10: that that the trafficking Formosan does not occur is triggered by that the redirecting Cabombaceae does not occur but the aesthetics occurs is correct.
sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the aesthetics happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the redirecting Cabombaceae does not occur hold.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the redirecting Cabombaceae does not occur and the aesthetics happens.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the trafficking Formosan does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trafficking Formosan occurs.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the redirecting Cabombaceae happens.; sent9 & sent6 -> int6: the demolishing does not occur.; sent5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the nonpsychoactiveness and the vitrioling collective occurs is incorrect.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the vitrioling collective does not occur.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the vitrioling collective does not occur and the redirecting Cabombaceae happens.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if that the trafficking Formosan occurs hold not the vitrioling collective but the redirecting Cabombaceae occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the fossilizing does not occur if both the non-Zolaesqueness and the tip-off occurs. sent2: if the Zolaesqueness occurs then the sabotage occurs. sent3: the sentencing happens. sent4: if that the nonpsychoactiveness happens and the vitrioling collective happens does not hold the fact that the vitrioling collective does not occur is true. sent5: if the demolishing does not occur then that the nonpsychoactiveness and the vitrioling collective happens is wrong. sent6: the redirecting satrap does not occur and the vitrioling Callirhoe does not occur. sent7: that the non-prefecturalness and the interstateness occurs triggers the non-aeromedicalness. sent8: if the sentencing happens then the aestheticsness happens. sent9: the demolishing does not occur if the redirecting satrap does not occur and the vitrioling Callirhoe does not occur. sent10: that that the trafficking Formosan does not occur is triggered by that the redirecting Cabombaceae does not occur but the aesthetics occurs is correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the aesthetics happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the redirecting Cabombaceae does not occur hold.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the redirecting Cabombaceae does not occur and the aesthetics happens.; int2 & sent10 -> int3: the trafficking Formosan does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the trafficking Formosan occurs.; int3 & assump1 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int4 -> int5: the redirecting Cabombaceae happens.; sent9 & sent6 -> int6: the demolishing does not occur.; sent5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the nonpsychoactiveness and the vitrioling collective occurs is incorrect.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the vitrioling collective does not occur.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the vitrioling collective does not occur and the redirecting Cabombaceae happens.; [assump1] & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__