there exists something such that it is a Lanius and non-Romansh.
sent1: there is something such that it is upmarket. sent2: if the fact that the permanent is both not a blog and not a Lanius is not true then the incisor japans heterosexuality. sent3: there exists something such that it is a blog. sent4: there exists something such that it is a dissoluteness. sent5: something is a kind of myalgic thing that is not instructional if it japans heterosexuality. sent6: there is something such that it does contribute badinage. sent7: the trimaran does japan heterosexuality. sent8: if that something is not a kind of a blog and is not a Lanius is not correct then it blog. sent9: that the trimaran does not contribute millenary and is not feminist does not hold. sent10: there is something such that that it is a feminist is true. sent11: if the fact that the incisor is not a blog and not a Romansh is wrong then the permanent is a kind of a Lanius. sent12: that the trimaran is a Romansh and not a feminist is incorrect. sent13: there exists something such that it is anaerobic. sent14: if something is a blog and japans heterosexuality then the fact that the incisor is a kind of a Lanius is correct. sent15: if the fact that the incisor does not contribute millenary and is not a kind of a Romansh is not right then the permanent is a blog. sent16: the incisor is not a kind of a Romansh. sent17: something does japan heterosexuality. sent18: The heterosexuality japans permanent. sent19: the fact that something is not a blog and not a Lanius is incorrect if it does not japan heterosexuality. sent20: the permanent is a kind of a blog if that the trimaran does not contribute millenary and is not feminist is incorrect. sent21: the kingmaker does japan heterosexuality.
sent20 & sent9 -> int1: the permanent is a blog.;
the bluebell is a kind of a blog.
sent8 -> int2: the bluebell is a blog if that it does not blog and is not a Lanius is wrong.; sent19 -> int3: if the fact that the bluebell does not japan heterosexuality is not wrong then the fact that it does not blog and it is not a kind of a Lanius does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a Lanius and non-Romansh. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is upmarket. sent2: if the fact that the permanent is both not a blog and not a Lanius is not true then the incisor japans heterosexuality. sent3: there exists something such that it is a blog. sent4: there exists something such that it is a dissoluteness. sent5: something is a kind of myalgic thing that is not instructional if it japans heterosexuality. sent6: there is something such that it does contribute badinage. sent7: the trimaran does japan heterosexuality. sent8: if that something is not a kind of a blog and is not a Lanius is not correct then it blog. sent9: that the trimaran does not contribute millenary and is not feminist does not hold. sent10: there is something such that that it is a feminist is true. sent11: if the fact that the incisor is not a blog and not a Romansh is wrong then the permanent is a kind of a Lanius. sent12: that the trimaran is a Romansh and not a feminist is incorrect. sent13: there exists something such that it is anaerobic. sent14: if something is a blog and japans heterosexuality then the fact that the incisor is a kind of a Lanius is correct. sent15: if the fact that the incisor does not contribute millenary and is not a kind of a Romansh is not right then the permanent is a blog. sent16: the incisor is not a kind of a Romansh. sent17: something does japan heterosexuality. sent18: The heterosexuality japans permanent. sent19: the fact that something is not a blog and not a Lanius is incorrect if it does not japan heterosexuality. sent20: the permanent is a kind of a blog if that the trimaran does not contribute millenary and is not feminist is incorrect. sent21: the kingmaker does japan heterosexuality. ; $proof$ = 
sent20 & sent9 -> int1: the permanent is a blog.; __UNKNOWN__