the fact that the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur if the souring happens is not true.
sent1: the sourness does not occur if that the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur is not correct. sent2: if the enfranchising Lubeck occurs the fact that the souring does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the notice and the non-viceregalness happens is not correct.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur is wrong.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the souring does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sour occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur if the souring happens is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the sourness does not occur if that the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur is not correct. sent2: if the enfranchising Lubeck occurs the fact that the souring does not occur is not incorrect. sent3: the fact that the notice and the non-viceregalness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur is wrong.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the souring does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sour occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the anticlimacticness does not occur and the enfranchising Lubeck does not occur.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__