there is something such that if it is a kind of a Hogarth and it is edible it is not a beneficence.
sent1: the kerion is a kind of a beneficence if it is a kind of a Hogarth and it is edible. sent2: if the kerion is a Hogarth and a digestion it does not build glockenspiel. sent3: there is something such that if it is not non-biosynthetic but a MPEG it is not a kind of an institute. sent4: that the kerion is not a beneficence is not false if it is a kind of a Hogarth and it is edible. sent5: if something builds bullheaded and is a Mayflower it is not a sachet. sent6: there exists something such that if it revolves and does capture it is not cometary. sent7: if the kerion is a kind of a beneficence that braids Zealander it does not revolve. sent8: there is something such that if it is physiotherapeutic and clad it is not a factorial. sent9: if that the kerion is both ammino and inattentive is not incorrect that it is not edible is correct. sent10: the astatine does not exclude if it is a Siphonaptera and it is edible. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a sachet that is a kind of a optative it does not braid hunter. sent12: the kerion is not a tonguefish if that it is a beneficence and it does exclude is correct. sent13: there is something such that if it is a Hogarth and it is edible then it is a beneficence. sent14: if the kerion is edible and it is a kind of a continuousness then the fact that it does not bandy is right.
sent4 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that if it builds bullheaded and it is a Mayflower it is not a sachet.
sent5 -> int1: if the luffa does build bullheaded and is a Mayflower then it is not a sachet.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a kind of a Hogarth and it is edible it is not a beneficence. ; $context$ = sent1: the kerion is a kind of a beneficence if it is a kind of a Hogarth and it is edible. sent2: if the kerion is a Hogarth and a digestion it does not build glockenspiel. sent3: there is something such that if it is not non-biosynthetic but a MPEG it is not a kind of an institute. sent4: that the kerion is not a beneficence is not false if it is a kind of a Hogarth and it is edible. sent5: if something builds bullheaded and is a Mayflower it is not a sachet. sent6: there exists something such that if it revolves and does capture it is not cometary. sent7: if the kerion is a kind of a beneficence that braids Zealander it does not revolve. sent8: there is something such that if it is physiotherapeutic and clad it is not a factorial. sent9: if that the kerion is both ammino and inattentive is not incorrect that it is not edible is correct. sent10: the astatine does not exclude if it is a Siphonaptera and it is edible. sent11: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a sachet that is a kind of a optative it does not braid hunter. sent12: the kerion is not a tonguefish if that it is a beneficence and it does exclude is correct. sent13: there is something such that if it is a Hogarth and it is edible then it is a beneficence. sent14: if the kerion is edible and it is a kind of a continuousness then the fact that it does not bandy is right. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__