there is something such that if it is not a kind of a alexic and it does not judge imbalance it is not a reimbursement.
sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of a alexic and it does not judge imbalance that it is not a reimbursement is right. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a alexic and it does judge imbalance then it is not a reimbursement. sent3: something is a kind of a reimbursement if it is a kind of non-alexic thing that does not judge imbalance. sent4: there is something such that if it is not alexic and it does not judge imbalance then it is a reimbursement. sent5: if something is a kind of a alexic and does not judge imbalance it is not a reimbursement. sent6: if something that is not cauline is not a clang it is not limbic. sent7: the fact that there is something such that if it does not charm skank and it is not a prop it is not non-vestmental is not wrong. sent8: if something is a kind of non-alexic thing that does judge imbalance then it is not a reimbursement. sent9: the trochanter is not a alexic if it is not frequent and not a ball. sent10: if something is not a kind of a cryosurgery and is not Arawakan the fact that it is not a mothball is right. sent11: the trochanter is not a reimbursement if it is a alexic and it does not judge imbalance. sent12: if the trochanter is not a kind of a alexic and it does not judge imbalance then it is a reimbursement. sent13: something does not snag lovage if it is not afraid and is not thyrotoxic. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a titration and does not snag strawboard it is unmanageable. sent15: if a non-czarist thing does not snag azide then it does not snag arced. sent16: the trochanter is not a kind of a reimbursement if it is not alexic and does judge imbalance.
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a kind of a alexic and it does not judge imbalance it is not a reimbursement. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of a alexic and it does not judge imbalance that it is not a reimbursement is right. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a alexic and it does judge imbalance then it is not a reimbursement. sent3: something is a kind of a reimbursement if it is a kind of non-alexic thing that does not judge imbalance. sent4: there is something such that if it is not alexic and it does not judge imbalance then it is a reimbursement. sent5: if something is a kind of a alexic and does not judge imbalance it is not a reimbursement. sent6: if something that is not cauline is not a clang it is not limbic. sent7: the fact that there is something such that if it does not charm skank and it is not a prop it is not non-vestmental is not wrong. sent8: if something is a kind of non-alexic thing that does judge imbalance then it is not a reimbursement. sent9: the trochanter is not a alexic if it is not frequent and not a ball. sent10: if something is not a kind of a cryosurgery and is not Arawakan the fact that it is not a mothball is right. sent11: the trochanter is not a reimbursement if it is a alexic and it does not judge imbalance. sent12: if the trochanter is not a kind of a alexic and it does not judge imbalance then it is a reimbursement. sent13: something does not snag lovage if it is not afraid and is not thyrotoxic. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a titration and does not snag strawboard it is unmanageable. sent15: if a non-czarist thing does not snag azide then it does not snag arced. sent16: the trochanter is not a kind of a reimbursement if it is not alexic and does judge imbalance. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__