there exists something such that if it is characteristic the fact that it is ultramicroscopic and it is not a kind of a one-thousandth is not true.
sent1: if something is a salsa it does interpolate Cetoniidae and does not pitch. sent2: something is a kind of a pincer but it is not meaningless if it does look Esaki. sent3: that something is ultramicroscopic thing that is a one-thousandth is false if that it is a characteristic is not false. sent4: if the medfly is not non-ballistic the fact that it is ultramicroscopic and is not a kind of an edition is wrong. sent5: something is ultramicroscopic and not a one-thousandth if it is a characteristic. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a characteristic it is ultramicroscopic but not a one-thousandth. sent7: there exists something such that if it is dimensional it does look postdoc and it is not a broiler. sent8: the fact that something is not non-ultramicroscopic but it does not interpolate choreographer does not hold if it is aerolitic. sent9: the medfly is ultramicroscopic thing that is not a kind of a broiler if it is a scarecrow. sent10: if that the medfly is characteristic is correct then it is ultramicroscopic and not a one-thousandth. sent11: if the medfly looks bill then it is both an edition and not a characteristic. sent12: the fact that the medfly is both ultramicroscopic and a one-thousandth is false if that it is not characteristic is incorrect. sent13: if the Wheeler is autolytic then the fact that it is a kind of a flow and it does suggest does not hold.
if the compiler is not non-aerolitic the fact that it is a kind of ultramicroscopic thing that does not interpolate choreographer is false.
sent8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is characteristic the fact that it is ultramicroscopic and it is not a kind of a one-thousandth is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a salsa it does interpolate Cetoniidae and does not pitch. sent2: something is a kind of a pincer but it is not meaningless if it does look Esaki. sent3: that something is ultramicroscopic thing that is a one-thousandth is false if that it is a characteristic is not false. sent4: if the medfly is not non-ballistic the fact that it is ultramicroscopic and is not a kind of an edition is wrong. sent5: something is ultramicroscopic and not a one-thousandth if it is a characteristic. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a characteristic it is ultramicroscopic but not a one-thousandth. sent7: there exists something such that if it is dimensional it does look postdoc and it is not a broiler. sent8: the fact that something is not non-ultramicroscopic but it does not interpolate choreographer does not hold if it is aerolitic. sent9: the medfly is ultramicroscopic thing that is not a kind of a broiler if it is a scarecrow. sent10: if that the medfly is characteristic is correct then it is ultramicroscopic and not a one-thousandth. sent11: if the medfly looks bill then it is both an edition and not a characteristic. sent12: the fact that the medfly is both ultramicroscopic and a one-thousandth is false if that it is not characteristic is incorrect. sent13: if the Wheeler is autolytic then the fact that it is a kind of a flow and it does suggest does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__