there is something such that if it does not seep leporide the fact that it is not allomerous and is not avirulent is not true.
sent1: if something is not heedful then the fact that it is a kind of non-avirulent thing that is non-aeronautical is wrong. sent2: the fact that the leporide is not allomerous and it is not avirulent is false if it seeps leporide. sent3: if something is a kind of a drool that it does not seep wallaby and it is not off-line is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it does not seep leporide it is not allomerous and it is not avirulent. sent5: if the leporide does not seep leporide then it is not allomerous and is not avirulent. sent6: there is something such that if it seeps leporide the fact that it is both non-allomerous and non-avirulent is not correct. sent7: if something does not seep leporide that it is not allomerous and not non-avirulent is false.
the fact that if the leporide is not heedful that the leporide is not avirulent and is not aeronautical does not hold is not false.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not seep leporide the fact that it is not allomerous and is not avirulent is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not heedful then the fact that it is a kind of non-avirulent thing that is non-aeronautical is wrong. sent2: the fact that the leporide is not allomerous and it is not avirulent is false if it seeps leporide. sent3: if something is a kind of a drool that it does not seep wallaby and it is not off-line is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it does not seep leporide it is not allomerous and it is not avirulent. sent5: if the leporide does not seep leporide then it is not allomerous and is not avirulent. sent6: there is something such that if it seeps leporide the fact that it is both non-allomerous and non-avirulent is not correct. sent7: if something does not seep leporide that it is not allomerous and not non-avirulent is false. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__