if the fact that the operableness occurs hold then that the sunburst but not the beatification happens is incorrect.
sent1: that the sunburst and the beatification occurs yields that the operableness does not occur. sent2: the non-Chileanness yields that the operableness occurs and the smutting happens. sent3: if the sunburst happens and the beatification does not occur the operableness happens. sent4: if the smutting occurs then the attacking happens. sent5: the Chilean does not occur if that the katharobicness but not the monopolizing rhumb happens does not hold. sent6: if the pro-lifeness occurs then that the fact that the katharobicness but not the monopolizing rhumb happens is not incorrect is wrong. sent7: if the asymmetricalness does not occur that the trustworthiness but not the radiologicalness occurs is incorrect. sent8: if the evangelicalness does not occur not the explanation but the abnormalness happens. sent9: that the operableness happens results in that the sunburst but not the beatification occurs. sent10: the sunburst happens. sent11: if that the trustworthiness but not the radiologicalness happens is wrong the evangelicalness does not occur. sent12: that the sunburst occurs and the beatification happens is not true if the operableness occurs. sent13: the skeletalness and the pro-lifeness occurs if the explanation does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sunburst happens but the beatification does not occur.;
the attack occurs.
$hypothesis$ = if the fact that the operableness occurs hold then that the sunburst but not the beatification happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sunburst and the beatification occurs yields that the operableness does not occur. sent2: the non-Chileanness yields that the operableness occurs and the smutting happens. sent3: if the sunburst happens and the beatification does not occur the operableness happens. sent4: if the smutting occurs then the attacking happens. sent5: the Chilean does not occur if that the katharobicness but not the monopolizing rhumb happens does not hold. sent6: if the pro-lifeness occurs then that the fact that the katharobicness but not the monopolizing rhumb happens is not incorrect is wrong. sent7: if the asymmetricalness does not occur that the trustworthiness but not the radiologicalness occurs is incorrect. sent8: if the evangelicalness does not occur not the explanation but the abnormalness happens. sent9: that the operableness happens results in that the sunburst but not the beatification occurs. sent10: the sunburst happens. sent11: if that the trustworthiness but not the radiologicalness happens is wrong the evangelicalness does not occur. sent12: that the sunburst occurs and the beatification happens is not true if the operableness occurs. sent13: the skeletalness and the pro-lifeness occurs if the explanation does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sunburst happens but the beatification does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__