that there is something such that if it is not dipolar then the fact that it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful does not hold is not correct.
sent1: the fact that the marseille is not a hem but it is eventful does not hold if it does not finish. sent2: if the counterrevolutionist is not eventful that it does not maintain bullshit and is a debate is false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not disorderly then the fact that it is not a concrete but occupational is not right. sent4: if something is not baccate then that it is a kind of non-computational a showerhead is not true. sent5: if the counterrevolutionist is dipolar the fact that it is not a obscurantism and is eventful is wrong. sent6: something is both not a obscurantism and eventful if it is not dipolar. sent7: if the counterrevolutionist does not maintain snowball then that it is not dipolar and it does star is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not suckle counterrevolutionist the fact that it does not maintain Descurainia and bestows is not right. sent9: there is something such that if it is non-dipolar then it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful. sent10: that the counterrevolutionist is a obscurantism and it is eventful is false if it is not dipolar. sent11: if something is dipolar then the fact that it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful is not true. sent12: if something does not suckle quarter-century the fact that it is not a kind of a tonic and it is purposeless is wrong. sent13: the fact that the bulla is a kind of non-iritic thing that does maintain opportuneness does not hold if that it is not a vol-au-vent is true. sent14: the fact that something is a kind of a obscurantism and it is eventful is not correct if the fact that it is not dipolar is not incorrect. sent15: the fact that the counterrevolutionist does not agitate but it is a kind of a local does not hold if it is not dipolar. sent16: there is something such that if that it does not maintain Evansville is correct the fact that it does not suckle brachydactyly and it does gin is wrong. sent17: that something is not a kind of a obscurantism and is eventful does not hold if the fact that it is not dipolar is not false. sent18: there is something such that if it is non-dipolar then that it is a kind of a obscurantism and it is eventful does not hold. sent19: if the counterrevolutionist is not dipolar then the fact that it is not an island but Hertzian is not right. sent20: there exists something such that if it is dipolar then that it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful is false. sent21: the counterrevolutionist is not a obscurantism but it is eventful if that it is not dipolar is correct.
sent17 -> int1: if the counterrevolutionist is not dipolar the fact that it is not a kind of a obscurantism and it is eventful does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not dipolar then the fact that it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful does not hold is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the marseille is not a hem but it is eventful does not hold if it does not finish. sent2: if the counterrevolutionist is not eventful that it does not maintain bullshit and is a debate is false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not disorderly then the fact that it is not a concrete but occupational is not right. sent4: if something is not baccate then that it is a kind of non-computational a showerhead is not true. sent5: if the counterrevolutionist is dipolar the fact that it is not a obscurantism and is eventful is wrong. sent6: something is both not a obscurantism and eventful if it is not dipolar. sent7: if the counterrevolutionist does not maintain snowball then that it is not dipolar and it does star is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not suckle counterrevolutionist the fact that it does not maintain Descurainia and bestows is not right. sent9: there is something such that if it is non-dipolar then it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful. sent10: that the counterrevolutionist is a obscurantism and it is eventful is false if it is not dipolar. sent11: if something is dipolar then the fact that it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful is not true. sent12: if something does not suckle quarter-century the fact that it is not a kind of a tonic and it is purposeless is wrong. sent13: the fact that the bulla is a kind of non-iritic thing that does maintain opportuneness does not hold if that it is not a vol-au-vent is true. sent14: the fact that something is a kind of a obscurantism and it is eventful is not correct if the fact that it is not dipolar is not incorrect. sent15: the fact that the counterrevolutionist does not agitate but it is a kind of a local does not hold if it is not dipolar. sent16: there is something such that if that it does not maintain Evansville is correct the fact that it does not suckle brachydactyly and it does gin is wrong. sent17: that something is not a kind of a obscurantism and is eventful does not hold if the fact that it is not dipolar is not false. sent18: there is something such that if it is non-dipolar then that it is a kind of a obscurantism and it is eventful does not hold. sent19: if the counterrevolutionist is not dipolar then the fact that it is not an island but Hertzian is not right. sent20: there exists something such that if it is dipolar then that it is not a obscurantism and it is eventful is false. sent21: the counterrevolutionist is not a obscurantism but it is eventful if that it is not dipolar is correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent17 -> int1: if the counterrevolutionist is not dipolar the fact that it is not a kind of a obscurantism and it is eventful does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__