the non-cinematicness and the nontaxableness occurs.
sent1: the cinematicness does not occur. sent2: if both the non-cinematicness and the exemptness occurs then the approbating dining-hall does not occur. sent3: that the institution happens hold. sent4: the approbating dining-hall and the institution occurs. sent5: that the approbating dining-hall does not occur is caused by that the cinematicness happens but the nonexemptness does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that both the non-cinematicness and the non-nonexemptness happens.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the approbating dining-hall does not occur.; sent4 -> int2: the approbating dining-hall occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the non-cinematicness and the nontaxableness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the cinematicness does not occur. sent2: if both the non-cinematicness and the exemptness occurs then the approbating dining-hall does not occur. sent3: that the institution happens hold. sent4: the approbating dining-hall and the institution occurs. sent5: that the approbating dining-hall does not occur is caused by that the cinematicness happens but the nonexemptness does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that both the non-cinematicness and the non-nonexemptness happens.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the approbating dining-hall does not occur.; sent4 -> int2: the approbating dining-hall occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__