that the fact that not the offering verboseness but the nonstop happens is not true if the atomization happens is incorrect.
sent1: the homicide does not occur. sent2: if that both the offering enterovirus and the non-supersonicness happens is not true the offering enterovirus does not occur. sent3: if the rhombicness does not occur then the teasing Austen and the admission occurs. sent4: that the offering enterovirus does not occur triggers that the loopiness and the atomization happens. sent5: that the alkaloidalness occurs is triggered by that both the non-aldehydicness and the unbending Tytonidae happens. sent6: the fact that the counterglow occurs and the rhombicness happens is not right if the opening does not occur. sent7: if the loopiness happens then the fact that the profession does not occur but the greenmail happens is incorrect. sent8: that the offering verboseness does not occur and the nonstop happens is caused by that the atomization occurs. sent9: if the availing occurs then the unbending Myxinikela does not occur but the convoying Ozothamnus occurs. sent10: the atomization does not occur if not the offering verboseness but the nonstop happens. sent11: that the offering enterovirus and the non-supersonicness happens is incorrect if the teasing Austen occurs. sent12: that the atomization does not occur is caused by that the offering verboseness and the nonstop happens. sent13: the offering verboseness does not occur. sent14: the fact that not the coincidence but the generaling occurs is false. sent15: that the atomization does not occur is prevented by that the offering verboseness does not occur and the nonstop occurs. sent16: that the rhombicness does not occur if the fact that both the counterglow and the rhombicness happens is wrong is not false.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that not the offering verboseness but the nonstop happens.; sent10 & assump2 -> int1: the atomization does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the atomization occurs hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the offering verboseness does not occur but the nonstop occurs does not hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the profession does not occur and the greenmail occurs does not hold.
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that not the offering verboseness but the nonstop happens is not true if the atomization happens is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the homicide does not occur. sent2: if that both the offering enterovirus and the non-supersonicness happens is not true the offering enterovirus does not occur. sent3: if the rhombicness does not occur then the teasing Austen and the admission occurs. sent4: that the offering enterovirus does not occur triggers that the loopiness and the atomization happens. sent5: that the alkaloidalness occurs is triggered by that both the non-aldehydicness and the unbending Tytonidae happens. sent6: the fact that the counterglow occurs and the rhombicness happens is not right if the opening does not occur. sent7: if the loopiness happens then the fact that the profession does not occur but the greenmail happens is incorrect. sent8: that the offering verboseness does not occur and the nonstop happens is caused by that the atomization occurs. sent9: if the availing occurs then the unbending Myxinikela does not occur but the convoying Ozothamnus occurs. sent10: the atomization does not occur if not the offering verboseness but the nonstop happens. sent11: that the offering enterovirus and the non-supersonicness happens is incorrect if the teasing Austen occurs. sent12: that the atomization does not occur is caused by that the offering verboseness and the nonstop happens. sent13: the offering verboseness does not occur. sent14: the fact that not the coincidence but the generaling occurs is false. sent15: that the atomization does not occur is prevented by that the offering verboseness does not occur and the nonstop occurs. sent16: that the rhombicness does not occur if the fact that both the counterglow and the rhombicness happens is wrong is not false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that not the offering verboseness but the nonstop happens.; sent10 & assump2 -> int1: the atomization does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the atomization occurs hold.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the fact that the offering verboseness does not occur but the nonstop occurs does not hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__