the supervention does not occur.
sent1: if the aboralness does not occur that the snowing marathoner and the bulbarness occurs is not right. sent2: the mesicness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the intransitiveness does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the fact that the observation does not occur hold the fact that the encircling Merton does not occur and the cholangiography happens is incorrect. sent5: the bulbarness does not occur if the fact that both the snowing marathoner and the bulbarness happens is false. sent6: if that the hijab occurs is true the disagreeing happens. sent7: that the damascene and the snowing rack happens is brought about by the non-gutsyness. sent8: that the snowing marathoner does not occur yields that the bulbarness occurs and the supervention does not occur. sent9: the chokehold occurs. sent10: that not the blaxploitation but the chokehold occurs does not hold if the supervention does not occur. sent11: that the disagreeing happens and the imprisonment occurs triggers the non-gutsiness. sent12: the signing does not occur. sent13: the postpositiveness occurs. sent14: if the philosophicalness does not occur then the snowing marathoner does not occur but the aboralness happens. sent15: if the bulbarness does not occur then the Reformation and the supervention happens. sent16: the deistness does not occur. sent17: that the dissociating does not occur and the lamentation occurs is false if that the suggesting does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: if the signing does not occur then the hijab happens or the parasympathetic happens or both. sent19: that the damascening occurs results in that both the non-philosophicalness and the enjoyment occurs. sent20: the blaxploitation does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the supervention does not occur.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the blaxploitation does not occur but the chokehold occurs is not correct.; sent20 & sent9 -> int2: not the blaxploitation but the chokehold happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the supervention does not occur is not incorrect.
sent18 & sent12 -> int4: either the hijab happens or the parasympatheticness happens or both.;
$hypothesis$ = the supervention does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the aboralness does not occur that the snowing marathoner and the bulbarness occurs is not right. sent2: the mesicness does not occur. sent3: the fact that the intransitiveness does not occur is not wrong. sent4: if the fact that the observation does not occur hold the fact that the encircling Merton does not occur and the cholangiography happens is incorrect. sent5: the bulbarness does not occur if the fact that both the snowing marathoner and the bulbarness happens is false. sent6: if that the hijab occurs is true the disagreeing happens. sent7: that the damascene and the snowing rack happens is brought about by the non-gutsyness. sent8: that the snowing marathoner does not occur yields that the bulbarness occurs and the supervention does not occur. sent9: the chokehold occurs. sent10: that not the blaxploitation but the chokehold occurs does not hold if the supervention does not occur. sent11: that the disagreeing happens and the imprisonment occurs triggers the non-gutsiness. sent12: the signing does not occur. sent13: the postpositiveness occurs. sent14: if the philosophicalness does not occur then the snowing marathoner does not occur but the aboralness happens. sent15: if the bulbarness does not occur then the Reformation and the supervention happens. sent16: the deistness does not occur. sent17: that the dissociating does not occur and the lamentation occurs is false if that the suggesting does not occur is not incorrect. sent18: if the signing does not occur then the hijab happens or the parasympathetic happens or both. sent19: that the damascening occurs results in that both the non-philosophicalness and the enjoyment occurs. sent20: the blaxploitation does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the supervention does not occur.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the blaxploitation does not occur but the chokehold occurs is not correct.; sent20 & sent9 -> int2: not the blaxploitation but the chokehold happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__