there exists something such that if it is not epiphyseal and it does scallop onomasticon then it is not Laputan.
sent1: if the dashboard does not defray kaki and is epiphyseal then that it is not endoparasitic is true. sent2: the fact that the dashboard is not Laputan hold if it is not epiphyseal and does scallop onomasticon. sent3: if something that is not a kind of a minimalist defrays catastrophe then it does not front. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of an expedient and it is a synovium it does not defray bankbook. sent5: there is something such that if it is non-epiphyseal thing that does scallop onomasticon then it is Laputan. sent6: that there is something such that if it is not a comity but a blow it is not acroscopic is not wrong.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that if it is not a minimalist and it does defray catastrophe then it is not a kind of a front.
sent3 -> int1: the scrapheap is not a front if it is not a minimalist and it defrays catastrophe.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not epiphyseal and it does scallop onomasticon then it is not Laputan. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dashboard does not defray kaki and is epiphyseal then that it is not endoparasitic is true. sent2: the fact that the dashboard is not Laputan hold if it is not epiphyseal and does scallop onomasticon. sent3: if something that is not a kind of a minimalist defrays catastrophe then it does not front. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of an expedient and it is a synovium it does not defray bankbook. sent5: there is something such that if it is non-epiphyseal thing that does scallop onomasticon then it is Laputan. sent6: that there is something such that if it is not a comity but a blow it is not acroscopic is not wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__