the fact that there is something such that if that it is not a Microchiroptera and it does swamp aviation does not hold then it is boric is false.
sent1: if something is not a kind of a Microchiroptera but it does swamp aviation it is boric. sent2: if the fact that the cupflower is not a Microchiroptera and swamps ogive is false it is a kind of a monopoly. sent3: something is a testosterone if that it does not schematize and is ergotropic is not true. sent4: the fact that if that something is not a kind of a Microchiroptera but it does swamp aviation does not hold then it is boric is correct. sent5: something is boric if it does not swamp aviation. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of non-undatable thing that does perceive Midgard does not hold then it is pediatric. sent7: if the veteran is not a kind of a Microchiroptera and swamps aviation it is boric. sent8: that something is a kind of a irredentist is not false if that it does not perceive moated and it does swamp arborolatry does not hold. sent9: there is something such that if it does not swamp aviation then it is boric. sent10: the fact that the veteran is boric is correct if it does not swamp aviation. sent11: if that something is a kind of a Microchiroptera and it swamps aviation is not right it is boric. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not a Microchiroptera and swamps aviation then it is boric. sent13: if that something is not a kind of a galaxy but it is calceolate is not right it is not non-Olympic. sent14: something is Muhammadan if that it is a kind of generous thing that perceives Midgard does not hold. sent15: if that the veteran is a Microchiroptera and swamps aviation is not correct it is boric. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a Johnny-jump-up and exalts confutation is not right it is apologetic. sent17: there is something such that if that it is a Microchiroptera and does swamp aviation is not correct it is boric.
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the veteran is boric hold if the fact that it is not a Microchiroptera and does swamp aviation is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if the fact that it is not ungenerous and it does perceive Midgard is incorrect it is Muhammadan.
sent14 -> int2: if the fact that the Kazak is generous thing that does perceive Midgard is false then it is Muhammadan.; int2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if that it is not a Microchiroptera and it does swamp aviation does not hold then it is boric is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a Microchiroptera but it does swamp aviation it is boric. sent2: if the fact that the cupflower is not a Microchiroptera and swamps ogive is false it is a kind of a monopoly. sent3: something is a testosterone if that it does not schematize and is ergotropic is not true. sent4: the fact that if that something is not a kind of a Microchiroptera but it does swamp aviation does not hold then it is boric is correct. sent5: something is boric if it does not swamp aviation. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of non-undatable thing that does perceive Midgard does not hold then it is pediatric. sent7: if the veteran is not a kind of a Microchiroptera and swamps aviation it is boric. sent8: that something is a kind of a irredentist is not false if that it does not perceive moated and it does swamp arborolatry does not hold. sent9: there is something such that if it does not swamp aviation then it is boric. sent10: the fact that the veteran is boric is correct if it does not swamp aviation. sent11: if that something is a kind of a Microchiroptera and it swamps aviation is not right it is boric. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not a Microchiroptera and swamps aviation then it is boric. sent13: if that something is not a kind of a galaxy but it is calceolate is not right it is not non-Olympic. sent14: something is Muhammadan if that it is a kind of generous thing that perceives Midgard does not hold. sent15: if that the veteran is a Microchiroptera and swamps aviation is not correct it is boric. sent16: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a Johnny-jump-up and exalts confutation is not right it is apologetic. sent17: there is something such that if that it is a Microchiroptera and does swamp aviation is not correct it is boric. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the veteran is boric hold if the fact that it is not a Microchiroptera and does swamp aviation is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__