there exists something such that if that it boggles and is not a validity is not right it is an irresponsibility.
sent1: the conk boggles if the fact that it does expire stepladder and does not elongate is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is unborn and it is not incredulous does not hold it is an exemplar. sent3: if that that the manageress is a dune but it does not broadside shinplaster is not false is not right then it boggles. sent4: the manageress is a kind of an irresponsibility if it boggles and is not a validity. sent5: the madder does gin if the fact that it boggles and it is not reptilian is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it boggles and is not a validity then it is a kind of an irresponsibility. sent7: if the fact that the necktie is Scandinavian and does not mushroom is false it is a velar. sent8: if the fact that that the manageress is quantal but it does not broadside Scheldt is not correct is right then that it is a weather is not incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a validity then it is an irresponsibility. sent10: if that something does boggle and is not a kind of a delegating is not true then it is terminological. sent11: if something does boggle and is not a validity that it is an irresponsibility is correct. sent12: if something is a validity then it is an irresponsibility. sent13: the manageress is an irresponsibility if it is a validity. sent14: if the fact that something is incredulous but it is not a kind of a herd is not true then it is anthropogenetic. sent15: if that something boggles but it is not a validity is wrong it is an irresponsibility.
sent15 -> int1: the manageress is an irresponsibility if the fact that it does boggle and is not a validity is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;
if the fact that the wreckfish does boggle but it does not delegate is not true the fact that it is terminological hold.
sent10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it boggles and is not a validity is not right it is an irresponsibility. ; $context$ = sent1: the conk boggles if the fact that it does expire stepladder and does not elongate is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is unborn and it is not incredulous does not hold it is an exemplar. sent3: if that that the manageress is a dune but it does not broadside shinplaster is not false is not right then it boggles. sent4: the manageress is a kind of an irresponsibility if it boggles and is not a validity. sent5: the madder does gin if the fact that it boggles and it is not reptilian is false. sent6: there exists something such that if it boggles and is not a validity then it is a kind of an irresponsibility. sent7: if the fact that the necktie is Scandinavian and does not mushroom is false it is a velar. sent8: if the fact that that the manageress is quantal but it does not broadside Scheldt is not correct is right then that it is a weather is not incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a validity then it is an irresponsibility. sent10: if that something does boggle and is not a kind of a delegating is not true then it is terminological. sent11: if something does boggle and is not a validity that it is an irresponsibility is correct. sent12: if something is a validity then it is an irresponsibility. sent13: the manageress is an irresponsibility if it is a validity. sent14: if the fact that something is incredulous but it is not a kind of a herd is not true then it is anthropogenetic. sent15: if that something boggles but it is not a validity is wrong it is an irresponsibility. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 -> int1: the manageress is an irresponsibility if the fact that it does boggle and is not a validity is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__