there is something such that if the fact that it does swamp Pyrrhula hold then that it is a particulate and it does not exalt Pinnotheridae does not hold.
sent1: there is something such that if it does swamp demineralization the fact that it swamps hexane and it does not perceive marbleization is not true. sent2: the fact that something is bromidic thing that does not swamp tippler is false if it is toneless. sent3: if the tumefaction does exalt tumefaction the fact that it is a twinkle and it does not exalt Pinnotheridae is wrong. sent4: if something does swamp Pyrrhula it is a particulate and it does not exalt Pinnotheridae. sent5: there exists something such that if it does swamp Pyrrhula then it is a kind of a particulate and does not exalt Pinnotheridae. sent6: if the fact that the demineralization is healthful is not false then that it is chondritic and it does not swamp Pyrrhula is wrong. sent7: that something is a kind of a particulate and it exalts Pinnotheridae is incorrect if it swamps Pyrrhula. sent8: there is something such that if it does perceive immutability then that it is actinic and it does not swamp demineralization is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is passionate then the fact that it is monetary and is not a kind of a neuroscience is not right. sent10: the tumefaction is a particulate and does not exalt Pinnotheridae if the fact that it does swamp Pyrrhula is right. sent11: that the paleolith is a kind of Kiplingesque thing that does not radicalize is wrong if that it exalts sadomasochism is right. sent12: that the tumefaction does lift but it does not exalt Pinnotheridae is not true if that it does bar hold. sent13: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Poa the fact that it exalts seigneur and it does not oppose is false. sent14: the fact that the seigneur is a Ionesco and does not perceive marbleization is not correct if it is a particulate. sent15: if the tumefaction does swamp Pyrrhula then that it is a kind of a particulate and it exalts Pinnotheridae does not hold. sent16: there is something such that if it does swamp Pyrrhula then the fact that it is a kind of particulate thing that exalts Pinnotheridae does not hold.
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it does swamp Pyrrhula hold then that it is a particulate and it does not exalt Pinnotheridae does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does swamp demineralization the fact that it swamps hexane and it does not perceive marbleization is not true. sent2: the fact that something is bromidic thing that does not swamp tippler is false if it is toneless. sent3: if the tumefaction does exalt tumefaction the fact that it is a twinkle and it does not exalt Pinnotheridae is wrong. sent4: if something does swamp Pyrrhula it is a particulate and it does not exalt Pinnotheridae. sent5: there exists something such that if it does swamp Pyrrhula then it is a kind of a particulate and does not exalt Pinnotheridae. sent6: if the fact that the demineralization is healthful is not false then that it is chondritic and it does not swamp Pyrrhula is wrong. sent7: that something is a kind of a particulate and it exalts Pinnotheridae is incorrect if it swamps Pyrrhula. sent8: there is something such that if it does perceive immutability then that it is actinic and it does not swamp demineralization is incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is passionate then the fact that it is monetary and is not a kind of a neuroscience is not right. sent10: the tumefaction is a particulate and does not exalt Pinnotheridae if the fact that it does swamp Pyrrhula is right. sent11: that the paleolith is a kind of Kiplingesque thing that does not radicalize is wrong if that it exalts sadomasochism is right. sent12: that the tumefaction does lift but it does not exalt Pinnotheridae is not true if that it does bar hold. sent13: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Poa the fact that it exalts seigneur and it does not oppose is false. sent14: the fact that the seigneur is a Ionesco and does not perceive marbleization is not correct if it is a particulate. sent15: if the tumefaction does swamp Pyrrhula then that it is a kind of a particulate and it exalts Pinnotheridae does not hold. sent16: there is something such that if it does swamp Pyrrhula then the fact that it is a kind of particulate thing that exalts Pinnotheridae does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__