there exists something such that if it is indivisible it does reveal and it is not a interpenetration.
sent1: something is pyrogenic thing that is not tabular if it is a luciferin. sent2: there is something such that if it is indivisible then that it reveals is correct. sent3: the mulligatawny reveals but it does not cloud feline if it does sample compressor. sent4: there exists something such that if it is indivisible it reveals and is a interpenetration. sent5: if the trimmer is indivisible then it reveals and it is not a kind of a interpenetration. sent6: if the trimmer is indivisible it does reveal. sent7: if the trimmer is a tragicomedy it does cloud orology and is not existential. sent8: that something is a kind of a asclepiad but it is not diagonalizable hold if it is a leaf-roller.
sent5 -> hypothesis;
the agent is pyrogenic and is not tabular if it is a luciferin.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is indivisible it does reveal and it is not a interpenetration. ; $context$ = sent1: something is pyrogenic thing that is not tabular if it is a luciferin. sent2: there is something such that if it is indivisible then that it reveals is correct. sent3: the mulligatawny reveals but it does not cloud feline if it does sample compressor. sent4: there exists something such that if it is indivisible it reveals and is a interpenetration. sent5: if the trimmer is indivisible then it reveals and it is not a kind of a interpenetration. sent6: if the trimmer is indivisible it does reveal. sent7: if the trimmer is a tragicomedy it does cloud orology and is not existential. sent8: that something is a kind of a asclepiad but it is not diagonalizable hold if it is a leaf-roller. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__