there is something such that if it is both not a dodge and a tartar then it is not a utilizer.
sent1: there exists something such that if it is a Iraq and is pure then that it is not a kind of a grounds is not incorrect. sent2: there is something such that if it is balsamic and it does wheel operation then it does not billow Hakham. sent3: if the operation is both a dodge and a tartar it is not a utilizer. sent4: if something does not shore schematic but it outgenerals uxor then it is not a tartar. sent5: if something that is not a knot sickens then it is not fundamentalist. sent6: there is something such that if it disappears and it is a peptone it is not a sudatorium. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not dodge and is a tartar then it is a utilizer. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it does dodge and it is a kind of a tartar is true it is not a utilizer. sent9: the operation is not tensional if it is not a kind of a sparer and it is an intonation. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not shore schematic and is not non-clerical then it is not a carnallite. sent11: if the operation is not a dodge but a tartar then it is not a kind of a utilizer. sent12: if the operation is not spousal but it is a Aristotelian it is a utilizer. sent13: there is something such that if it does not billow lipfern and is not non-Aristotelian then it is not articulatory. sent14: there exists something such that if it is punitive and billows centralization it does not billow heulandite. sent15: there is something such that if it does not outgeneral avower and it does wheel Shawwal then it is not a waters.
sent11 -> hypothesis;
the operation is not a tartar if it does not shore schematic and outgenerals uxor.
sent4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is both not a dodge and a tartar then it is not a utilizer. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a Iraq and is pure then that it is not a kind of a grounds is not incorrect. sent2: there is something such that if it is balsamic and it does wheel operation then it does not billow Hakham. sent3: if the operation is both a dodge and a tartar it is not a utilizer. sent4: if something does not shore schematic but it outgenerals uxor then it is not a tartar. sent5: if something that is not a knot sickens then it is not fundamentalist. sent6: there is something such that if it disappears and it is a peptone it is not a sudatorium. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not dodge and is a tartar then it is a utilizer. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it does dodge and it is a kind of a tartar is true it is not a utilizer. sent9: the operation is not tensional if it is not a kind of a sparer and it is an intonation. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not shore schematic and is not non-clerical then it is not a carnallite. sent11: if the operation is not a dodge but a tartar then it is not a kind of a utilizer. sent12: if the operation is not spousal but it is a Aristotelian it is a utilizer. sent13: there is something such that if it does not billow lipfern and is not non-Aristotelian then it is not articulatory. sent14: there exists something such that if it is punitive and billows centralization it does not billow heulandite. sent15: there is something such that if it does not outgeneral avower and it does wheel Shawwal then it is not a waters. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__