the squelch is not servile or it does phrase or both.
sent1: there is something such that it is not a Actium and it is a shrillness. sent2: if something is servile then it is not indulgent. sent3: something that does post daylight thinks jodhpurs. sent4: there exists something such that that it is nonindulgent is not false. sent5: either the Athapaskan phrases or it is servile or both if there are non-nonindulgent things. sent6: the fact that the Athapaskan is a kind of non-photovoltaic thing that does card Nielsen is not true if the squelch is nonindulgent. sent7: the Athapaskan is not nonindulgent if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Actium hold. sent8: that something is servile and/or is a kind of a funicular is not wrong. sent9: the fact that something is not servile and/or it is a phrasing is false if it is nonindulgent. sent10: there is something such that that it is both not servile and nonindulgent is false. sent11: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Actium and it is a shrillness does not hold. sent12: if something is not nonindulgent that the Athapaskan is not servile and/or it is a kind of a phrasing is correct. sent13: the Athapaskan is not outer. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Actium that is a shrillness is false. sent15: there is something such that it is not a phrasing. sent16: the squelch is not servile or it phrases or both if something is not nonindulgent. sent17: either the squelch is servile or it is a phrasing or both. sent18: if there exists something such that it either is servile or is funicular or both then that the turnoff is servile is not incorrect.
that either the squelch is not servile or it does phrase or both is wrong.
sent9 -> int1: if the squelch is nonindulgent that either it is not servile or it is a phrasing or both is not right.; sent3 -> int2: if the Athapaskan posts daylight it does think jodhpurs.;
$hypothesis$ = the squelch is not servile or it does phrase or both. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is not a Actium and it is a shrillness. sent2: if something is servile then it is not indulgent. sent3: something that does post daylight thinks jodhpurs. sent4: there exists something such that that it is nonindulgent is not false. sent5: either the Athapaskan phrases or it is servile or both if there are non-nonindulgent things. sent6: the fact that the Athapaskan is a kind of non-photovoltaic thing that does card Nielsen is not true if the squelch is nonindulgent. sent7: the Athapaskan is not nonindulgent if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Actium hold. sent8: that something is servile and/or is a kind of a funicular is not wrong. sent9: the fact that something is not servile and/or it is a phrasing is false if it is nonindulgent. sent10: there is something such that that it is both not servile and nonindulgent is false. sent11: there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a Actium and it is a shrillness does not hold. sent12: if something is not nonindulgent that the Athapaskan is not servile and/or it is a kind of a phrasing is correct. sent13: the Athapaskan is not outer. sent14: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Actium that is a shrillness is false. sent15: there is something such that it is not a phrasing. sent16: the squelch is not servile or it phrases or both if something is not nonindulgent. sent17: either the squelch is servile or it is a phrasing or both. sent18: if there exists something such that it either is servile or is funicular or both then that the turnoff is servile is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__