there exists something such that if it is rotatory then the fact that it does not avoid intron and it subordinates is wrong.
sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is nonconductive hold then that it is not a heartiness but a aeciospore is false. sent2: the fact that the frankincense is not a brushed but subordinate is wrong if that it does avoid Hilo is not wrong. sent3: that the noncombatant is a Germinal and is dioecious is not right if it is rotatory. sent4: the fact that the noncombatant does avoid intron and is thankless does not hold if it is a Alisma. sent5: there exists something such that if it avoids packaged the fact that it is a dowered and is thermostatics does not hold. sent6: that the cenotaph avoids rhodopsin and is a particularity does not hold if it is a invalidator. sent7: the fact that the noncombatant does not reload but it is rotatory is not wrong if it corresponds mucin. sent8: there exists something such that if it is rotatory the fact that it avoids intron and it is subordinate is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not non-rotatory then it does not avoid intron and it subordinates. sent10: if the noncombatant is rotatory then that it does not avoid intron and it subordinates does not hold. sent11: the noncombatant does not avoid intron and is a crest if it uprises. sent12: if the openwork is a beanie then the fact that it avoids intron and is Balzacian does not hold. sent13: that the noncombatant is not a kind of a subordinate but it is a Stanford is false if it is dactylic. sent14: if the noncombatant is rotatory then that it avoids intron and is a subordinate is not correct. sent15: there exists something such that if the fact that it is androgynous is correct it does not avoid openwork and it avoids rhodopsin. sent16: if the noncombatant is rotatory it does not avoid intron and it is a subordinate. sent17: there exists something such that if it grandstands then the fact that it does correspond dasyurid and it is a disgustingness is false. sent18: that something is not a ascus but it is a Sarawakian is incorrect if it does avoid cover. sent19: there exists something such that if it does antisepticize audiotape then the fact that it does not avoid Tapirus and it avoids openwork is not right. sent20: that the noncombatant is rotatory and it is formalistic is not correct if it is a beanie.
sent10 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that if it does avoid cover that it is not a ascus and it is Sarawakian is not true.
sent18 -> int1: the fact that the princess is not a ascus but Sarawakian is wrong if it avoids cover.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is rotatory then the fact that it does not avoid intron and it subordinates is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is nonconductive hold then that it is not a heartiness but a aeciospore is false. sent2: the fact that the frankincense is not a brushed but subordinate is wrong if that it does avoid Hilo is not wrong. sent3: that the noncombatant is a Germinal and is dioecious is not right if it is rotatory. sent4: the fact that the noncombatant does avoid intron and is thankless does not hold if it is a Alisma. sent5: there exists something such that if it avoids packaged the fact that it is a dowered and is thermostatics does not hold. sent6: that the cenotaph avoids rhodopsin and is a particularity does not hold if it is a invalidator. sent7: the fact that the noncombatant does not reload but it is rotatory is not wrong if it corresponds mucin. sent8: there exists something such that if it is rotatory the fact that it avoids intron and it is subordinate is wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not non-rotatory then it does not avoid intron and it subordinates. sent10: if the noncombatant is rotatory then that it does not avoid intron and it subordinates does not hold. sent11: the noncombatant does not avoid intron and is a crest if it uprises. sent12: if the openwork is a beanie then the fact that it avoids intron and is Balzacian does not hold. sent13: that the noncombatant is not a kind of a subordinate but it is a Stanford is false if it is dactylic. sent14: if the noncombatant is rotatory then that it avoids intron and is a subordinate is not correct. sent15: there exists something such that if the fact that it is androgynous is correct it does not avoid openwork and it avoids rhodopsin. sent16: if the noncombatant is rotatory it does not avoid intron and it is a subordinate. sent17: there exists something such that if it grandstands then the fact that it does correspond dasyurid and it is a disgustingness is false. sent18: that something is not a ascus but it is a Sarawakian is incorrect if it does avoid cover. sent19: there exists something such that if it does antisepticize audiotape then the fact that it does not avoid Tapirus and it avoids openwork is not right. sent20: that the noncombatant is rotatory and it is formalistic is not correct if it is a beanie. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__