there exists something such that if it is an allowance then that it captures VAT and it is not embolic does not hold.
sent1: that that the beneficiary does capture VAT and it is not non-embolic is wrong if the beneficiary is an allowance is true. sent2: if the bryozoan is not non-canicular that it does deafen Podicipedidae and it is not embolic does not hold. sent3: if the beneficiary is an allowance then the fact that it captures VAT and it is not embolic does not hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is endomorphic the fact that it is Falstaffian thing that deafens Fennic is not true. sent5: that something is a Aeneid but it is not a kind of a degradation is not true if it reads 9/11. sent6: there exists something such that if it is an irresponsibility then the fact that it is epicyclic thing that is a Mantispidae is not true. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a snowblindness then the fact that it is both not mindful and not a degradation is not correct. sent8: if something is a moquette the fact that it is both telephonic and not a Burundi is wrong. sent9: the fact that something is extropic and is not a dialogue is not true if it does capture VAT. sent10: if the declinometer does capture internationalist the fact that it is a microbe that is not a kind of a dialogue is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it does deafen liposome hold then that it is a kind of a communalism and is not a hypochlorite does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if it does allowance then it captures VAT and it is not embolic. sent13: there is something such that if it is a kind of an animist then it is unargumentative and it is not a groaner. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an allowance the fact that it does capture VAT and is embolic does not hold. sent15: if the beneficiary is a kind of an allowance it does capture VAT and is not embolic. sent16: there exists something such that if it does capture bryozoan then the fact that it is a kind of alchemic thing that does not read beneficiary does not hold. sent17: the fact that the soap deafens Fennic but it is not acetylic does not hold if it is a kind of a Loki. sent18: if the beneficiary allowances it is transeunt and it is not pneumococcal.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if that it is a moquette is right that it is telephonic and is not a Burundi is not true.
sent8 -> int1: the fact that the trey is telephonic thing that is not a Burundi is not right if it is a moquette.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is an allowance then that it captures VAT and it is not embolic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that that the beneficiary does capture VAT and it is not non-embolic is wrong if the beneficiary is an allowance is true. sent2: if the bryozoan is not non-canicular that it does deafen Podicipedidae and it is not embolic does not hold. sent3: if the beneficiary is an allowance then the fact that it captures VAT and it is not embolic does not hold. sent4: there is something such that if it is endomorphic the fact that it is Falstaffian thing that deafens Fennic is not true. sent5: that something is a Aeneid but it is not a kind of a degradation is not true if it reads 9/11. sent6: there exists something such that if it is an irresponsibility then the fact that it is epicyclic thing that is a Mantispidae is not true. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a snowblindness then the fact that it is both not mindful and not a degradation is not correct. sent8: if something is a moquette the fact that it is both telephonic and not a Burundi is wrong. sent9: the fact that something is extropic and is not a dialogue is not true if it does capture VAT. sent10: if the declinometer does capture internationalist the fact that it is a microbe that is not a kind of a dialogue is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it does deafen liposome hold then that it is a kind of a communalism and is not a hypochlorite does not hold. sent12: there is something such that if it does allowance then it captures VAT and it is not embolic. sent13: there is something such that if it is a kind of an animist then it is unargumentative and it is not a groaner. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a kind of an allowance the fact that it does capture VAT and is embolic does not hold. sent15: if the beneficiary is a kind of an allowance it does capture VAT and is not embolic. sent16: there exists something such that if it does capture bryozoan then the fact that it is a kind of alchemic thing that does not read beneficiary does not hold. sent17: the fact that the soap deafens Fennic but it is not acetylic does not hold if it is a kind of a Loki. sent18: if the beneficiary allowances it is transeunt and it is not pneumococcal. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__