there exists something such that if it is not non-prolusory it is aphanitic and it does not kidnap Stalinization.
sent1: something is aphanitic but it does not kidnap Stalinization if it is prolusory. sent2: if the fact that the electron is prolusory is right it is aphanitic and it kidnaps Stalinization. sent3: there is something such that if that it is purposeful hold it is nonsurgical and it is not a kind of a shirtwaist. sent4: something that does moisten is both a bound and not cataclinal. sent5: something does content but it is not Eucharistic if it is a Veratrum. sent6: if that the electron is incommodious is true that it is aphanitic and it is not a kosher is true. sent7: the electron is a kind of a woodcraft that does not individuate Anglicization if it does kidnap Stalinization. sent8: there is something such that if it is prolusory then it does not kidnap Stalinization. sent9: if the burrow is mammary it is a diplomate and it does not kidnap Stalinization. sent10: if the humification does kidnap steelyard then it is prolusory. sent11: there is something such that if it is prolusory then it is a kind of aphanitic thing that does kidnap Stalinization. sent12: if that the electron is a kind of a contents hold it kidnaps Stalinization and it is not a hiddenness. sent13: something is a kind of a Frisbee but it does not kidnap jammed if it is a kind of a small. sent14: if the electron invigorates it jostles mucosa and is not prolusory. sent15: there is something such that if it is prolusory then it is aphanitic. sent16: if the humification whelps gnocchi then it does perambulate. sent17: if the electron is aphanitic it is a kind of a flageolet and it is not an undertow. sent18: the electron is aphanitic if it is prolusory.
sent1 -> int1: if the electron is prolusory then it is aphanitic and it does not kidnap Stalinization.; int1 -> hypothesis;
the steelyard does content but it is not Eucharistic if that it is a kind of a Veratrum is right.
sent5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not non-prolusory it is aphanitic and it does not kidnap Stalinization. ; $context$ = sent1: something is aphanitic but it does not kidnap Stalinization if it is prolusory. sent2: if the fact that the electron is prolusory is right it is aphanitic and it kidnaps Stalinization. sent3: there is something such that if that it is purposeful hold it is nonsurgical and it is not a kind of a shirtwaist. sent4: something that does moisten is both a bound and not cataclinal. sent5: something does content but it is not Eucharistic if it is a Veratrum. sent6: if that the electron is incommodious is true that it is aphanitic and it is not a kosher is true. sent7: the electron is a kind of a woodcraft that does not individuate Anglicization if it does kidnap Stalinization. sent8: there is something such that if it is prolusory then it does not kidnap Stalinization. sent9: if the burrow is mammary it is a diplomate and it does not kidnap Stalinization. sent10: if the humification does kidnap steelyard then it is prolusory. sent11: there is something such that if it is prolusory then it is a kind of aphanitic thing that does kidnap Stalinization. sent12: if that the electron is a kind of a contents hold it kidnaps Stalinization and it is not a hiddenness. sent13: something is a kind of a Frisbee but it does not kidnap jammed if it is a kind of a small. sent14: if the electron invigorates it jostles mucosa and is not prolusory. sent15: there is something such that if it is prolusory then it is aphanitic. sent16: if the humification whelps gnocchi then it does perambulate. sent17: if the electron is aphanitic it is a kind of a flageolet and it is not an undertow. sent18: the electron is aphanitic if it is prolusory. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> int1: if the electron is prolusory then it is aphanitic and it does not kidnap Stalinization.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__