there is something such that if the fact that it is not fingerless is not false then the fact that it does not draw Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron does not hold.
sent1: if something is not adamantine then the fact that it is not a marquess and does comfort blown does not hold. sent2: there is something such that if it is fingerless the fact that it does not draw Gobio and is not a Sceliphron is not true. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not fingerless then that it draws Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron is not true. sent4: the fact that something is not micrometeoric and is not a condiment is incorrect if it is not a kind of a splitsville. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a tot then the fact that it is not a punctuation and is not barytic does not hold. sent6: that if something is not fingerless then the fact that it does not draw Gobio and it is a kind of a Sceliphron is wrong is not wrong. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not fingerless it does not draw Gobio and is not a kind of a Sceliphron. sent8: if something is fingerless the fact that it does not draw Gobio and is not a Sceliphron is not right. sent9: something does not draw Gobio and is not a kind of a Sceliphron if it is not fingerless. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of a booked and does not comfort rollerblader is wrong if it is a viability. sent11: if the graham is not fingerless it does not draw Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron. sent12: if the graham is fingerless that it does not draw Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron is false. sent13: there is something such that if it does not draw linden the fact that it is not caulescent and is a shindig does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not fingerless then the fact that it does not draw Gobio and it is a kind of a Sceliphron is wrong.
there exists something such that if it is not a splitsville the fact that it is not micrometeoric and is not a condiment is not true.
sent4 -> int1: if that the farfalle is not a splitsville hold then the fact that it is both not micrometeoric and not a condiment is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it is not fingerless is not false then the fact that it does not draw Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not adamantine then the fact that it is not a marquess and does comfort blown does not hold. sent2: there is something such that if it is fingerless the fact that it does not draw Gobio and is not a Sceliphron is not true. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not fingerless then that it draws Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron is not true. sent4: the fact that something is not micrometeoric and is not a condiment is incorrect if it is not a kind of a splitsville. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a tot then the fact that it is not a punctuation and is not barytic does not hold. sent6: that if something is not fingerless then the fact that it does not draw Gobio and it is a kind of a Sceliphron is wrong is not wrong. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not fingerless it does not draw Gobio and is not a kind of a Sceliphron. sent8: if something is fingerless the fact that it does not draw Gobio and is not a Sceliphron is not right. sent9: something does not draw Gobio and is not a kind of a Sceliphron if it is not fingerless. sent10: the fact that something is not a kind of a booked and does not comfort rollerblader is wrong if it is a viability. sent11: if the graham is not fingerless it does not draw Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron. sent12: if the graham is fingerless that it does not draw Gobio and it is not a Sceliphron is false. sent13: there is something such that if it does not draw linden the fact that it is not caulescent and is a shindig does not hold. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not fingerless then the fact that it does not draw Gobio and it is a kind of a Sceliphron is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__