there exists something such that if it is a kind of a ferned and it is not an ignition it is not a kind of an intelligence.
sent1: the exodontist is not an intelligence if it is a ferned that is not an ignition. sent2: there exists something such that if it is three-wheel and does not look continuousness it is not axile. sent3: there is something such that if it regulates and is nonindulgent that it does not look hosteller is not incorrect. sent4: the exodontist is a vegetable if it does mediate and it does not permit octane. sent5: the fact that the exodontist is not a kind of a cirrocumulus hold if it is a Pasiphae and it is a ferned. sent6: something is not intelligible if it does raffle and it is not a liability.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it is both a raffle and not a liability then it is not intelligible.
sent6 -> int1: if the tarsier is a raffle that is not a liability it is not intelligible.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a kind of a ferned and it is not an ignition it is not a kind of an intelligence. ; $context$ = sent1: the exodontist is not an intelligence if it is a ferned that is not an ignition. sent2: there exists something such that if it is three-wheel and does not look continuousness it is not axile. sent3: there is something such that if it regulates and is nonindulgent that it does not look hosteller is not incorrect. sent4: the exodontist is a vegetable if it does mediate and it does not permit octane. sent5: the fact that the exodontist is not a kind of a cirrocumulus hold if it is a Pasiphae and it is a ferned. sent6: something is not intelligible if it does raffle and it is not a liability. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__