there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-zygomatic thing that does whack does not hold.
sent1: the fact that the riff is zygomatic and it whacks is not right if something is a sherbert. sent2: if the mugwort is outdoor it is not unpardonable and it is not autacoidal. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is zygomatic and it does whack does not hold. sent4: if the mugwort is both pardonable and not autacoidal the boardinghouse is a whacking. sent5: that the riff is zygomatic and a whacking does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that it is nonsteroidal. sent7: if something is a sherbert then the fact that it is not a Durrell and it is zygomatic does not hold. sent8: the fact that the riff does not usher uphill but it is a whacking is not right if something is a bethel. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a sherbert then that the mitogen is not communicative but it is a lockup is not right. sent10: there exists something such that that it does not embower gamebag and it is radiopaque is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not eruptive and it is incommutable does not hold. sent12: that the narcotic is non-zygomatic but it does embower rape is wrong if there exists something such that it is multidimensional. sent13: that the riff is a kind of non-zygomatic thing that is a kind of a whacking does not hold if there is something such that it is a kind of a sherbert. sent14: there exists something such that it is not zygomatic and it is a whacking. sent15: there exists something such that that it is both not a Voltaire and pious is wrong. sent16: if the coliphage is a sherbert the riff is a sherbert. sent17: there is something such that that it does not embower mugwort and is microeconomic does not hold.
that the riff is not a kind of a Durrell but it is zygomatic is false.
sent7 -> int1: if the riff is a kind of a sherbert then that it is not a kind of a Durrell and it is zygomatic does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it is a kind of non-zygomatic thing that does whack does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the riff is zygomatic and it whacks is not right if something is a sherbert. sent2: if the mugwort is outdoor it is not unpardonable and it is not autacoidal. sent3: there exists something such that the fact that it is zygomatic and it does whack does not hold. sent4: if the mugwort is both pardonable and not autacoidal the boardinghouse is a whacking. sent5: that the riff is zygomatic and a whacking does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that it is nonsteroidal. sent7: if something is a sherbert then the fact that it is not a Durrell and it is zygomatic does not hold. sent8: the fact that the riff does not usher uphill but it is a whacking is not right if something is a bethel. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a sherbert then that the mitogen is not communicative but it is a lockup is not right. sent10: there exists something such that that it does not embower gamebag and it is radiopaque is not correct. sent11: there exists something such that the fact that it is not eruptive and it is incommutable does not hold. sent12: that the narcotic is non-zygomatic but it does embower rape is wrong if there exists something such that it is multidimensional. sent13: that the riff is a kind of non-zygomatic thing that is a kind of a whacking does not hold if there is something such that it is a kind of a sherbert. sent14: there exists something such that it is not zygomatic and it is a whacking. sent15: there exists something such that that it is both not a Voltaire and pious is wrong. sent16: if the coliphage is a sherbert the riff is a sherbert. sent17: there is something such that that it does not embower mugwort and is microeconomic does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__