if the call-back does not occur then either the Sabine occurs or the splashiness occurs or both.
sent1: if the fact that not the recovery but the sparing occurs is wrong then the anisogamicness occurs. sent2: if the fact that not the ductlessness but the call-back occurs does not hold that the Sabine happens is correct. sent3: the proration does not occur if the fact that the ductlessness and the call-back happens is incorrect. sent4: the celiacness happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ductlessness does not occur but the call-back happens.; assump1 -> int1: the call-back occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the call-back does not occur.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the non-ductlessness and the call-back occurs does not hold.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the Sabine occurs.; int4 -> int5: the Sabine or the splashiness or both occurs.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the proration does not occur but the welding annulment happens.
$hypothesis$ = if the call-back does not occur then either the Sabine occurs or the splashiness occurs or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that not the recovery but the sparing occurs is wrong then the anisogamicness occurs. sent2: if the fact that not the ductlessness but the call-back occurs does not hold that the Sabine happens is correct. sent3: the proration does not occur if the fact that the ductlessness and the call-back happens is incorrect. sent4: the celiacness happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ductlessness does not occur but the call-back happens.; assump1 -> int1: the call-back occurs.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the call-back does not occur.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the non-ductlessness and the call-back occurs does not hold.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the Sabine occurs.; int4 -> int5: the Sabine or the splashiness or both occurs.; [assump2] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__