the articling retinol occurs and the assailing occurs.
sent1: the saxicolousness does not occur. sent2: the subartesianness and the pteridologicalness occurs. sent3: the fact that the mediating does not occur hold if the bronchoscopicness occurs. sent4: that both the parsing Ramman and the cared-forness occurs is caused by that the aversiveness does not occur. sent5: the fact that if the mediating occurs the fact that the unfruitfulness does not occur but the bronchoscopicness happens is not true is true. sent6: if the bronchoscopicness does not occur then the fact that the articling retinol and the assailing occurs does not hold. sent7: the being occurs. sent8: the bronchoscopicness occurs. sent9: that the mediating does not occur and the articling retinol does not occur is false. sent10: the unfruitfulness occurs if the saxicolousness does not occur. sent11: if the saxicolousness does not occur then both the assailing and the unfruitfulness happens. sent12: that the unfruitfulness happens is true. sent13: if the saxicolousness happens the unfruitfulness but not the assailing happens. sent14: the fact that the saxicolousness happens is not incorrect if that the articling euro does not occur and the inertialness does not occur is not correct.
sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the mediating does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the articling retinol does not occur.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the mediatedness does not occur and the articling retinol does not occur.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the articling retinol occurs.; sent11 & sent1 -> int5: the assailing and the unfruitfulness happens.; int5 -> int6: the assailing happens.; int4 & int6 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the articling retinol happens and the assailing occurs is not true.
$hypothesis$ = the articling retinol occurs and the assailing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the saxicolousness does not occur. sent2: the subartesianness and the pteridologicalness occurs. sent3: the fact that the mediating does not occur hold if the bronchoscopicness occurs. sent4: that both the parsing Ramman and the cared-forness occurs is caused by that the aversiveness does not occur. sent5: the fact that if the mediating occurs the fact that the unfruitfulness does not occur but the bronchoscopicness happens is not true is true. sent6: if the bronchoscopicness does not occur then the fact that the articling retinol and the assailing occurs does not hold. sent7: the being occurs. sent8: the bronchoscopicness occurs. sent9: that the mediating does not occur and the articling retinol does not occur is false. sent10: the unfruitfulness occurs if the saxicolousness does not occur. sent11: if the saxicolousness does not occur then both the assailing and the unfruitfulness happens. sent12: that the unfruitfulness happens is true. sent13: if the saxicolousness happens the unfruitfulness but not the assailing happens. sent14: the fact that the saxicolousness happens is not incorrect if that the articling euro does not occur and the inertialness does not occur is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the mediating does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the articling retinol does not occur.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the mediatedness does not occur and the articling retinol does not occur.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the articling retinol occurs.; sent11 & sent1 -> int5: the assailing and the unfruitfulness happens.; int5 -> int6: the assailing happens.; int4 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__