there is something such that if it is epenthetic and it does not strand bowls it is a jactitation.
sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a processional and it is not thrifty then that it is opposite is not false. sent2: if something that is morphologic does not birdnest polymastigote it is a kind of a raffle. sent3: there exists something such that if it does subtilize coronation and it is a kind of a kibe then it is a kind of a Caucasian. sent4: there exists something such that if it does subtilize dealings and is intradepartmental that it is a Carlyle is not false. sent5: if a epenthetic thing strands bowls it is a kind of a jactitation. sent6: there is something such that if it does birdnest talent and it is not a fogged then it is psychotherapeutic. sent7: the talent is a kind of a jactitation if it is epenthetic and it strands bowls. sent8: if something is a kind of a Emile but it does not strand betrayal then the fact that it does subtilize blanquillo is not incorrect. sent9: if something is a kind of a conceptualization that is not terminological it is indigestible. sent10: if something is a kind of a Caucasian and does not subtilize turf it is congressional. sent11: the main is a Ugandan if it is Cromwellian and it is not epenthetic. sent12: if something is interoceptive but it does not subtilize coronation then that it is a narcissist hold. sent13: there is something such that if it lights and it is not non-stainable it is not non-Singhalese. sent14: the talent is a stack if it does strand elective and is not a crippling.
there exists something such that if it is morphologic and it does not birdnest polymastigote then it is a kind of a raffle.
sent2 -> int1: the nacho is a raffle if it is a kind of morphologic thing that does not birdnest polymastigote.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is epenthetic and it does not strand bowls it is a jactitation. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a processional and it is not thrifty then that it is opposite is not false. sent2: if something that is morphologic does not birdnest polymastigote it is a kind of a raffle. sent3: there exists something such that if it does subtilize coronation and it is a kind of a kibe then it is a kind of a Caucasian. sent4: there exists something such that if it does subtilize dealings and is intradepartmental that it is a Carlyle is not false. sent5: if a epenthetic thing strands bowls it is a kind of a jactitation. sent6: there is something such that if it does birdnest talent and it is not a fogged then it is psychotherapeutic. sent7: the talent is a kind of a jactitation if it is epenthetic and it strands bowls. sent8: if something is a kind of a Emile but it does not strand betrayal then the fact that it does subtilize blanquillo is not incorrect. sent9: if something is a kind of a conceptualization that is not terminological it is indigestible. sent10: if something is a kind of a Caucasian and does not subtilize turf it is congressional. sent11: the main is a Ugandan if it is Cromwellian and it is not epenthetic. sent12: if something is interoceptive but it does not subtilize coronation then that it is a narcissist hold. sent13: there is something such that if it lights and it is not non-stainable it is not non-Singhalese. sent14: the talent is a stack if it does strand elective and is not a crippling. ; $proof$ = 
__UNKNOWN__