there exists something such that the fact that it resists bethel and does not resist grandstander is incorrect.
sent1: that something does resist bethel and does deserve notepaper does not hold if it is not a posterior. sent2: that that the finalist deserves synergism and it is a kind of a Karelia is not incorrect is not correct. sent3: the fact that something is directed thing that is unbroken is wrong if it is not a arsenical. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it deserves support and it is cucurbitaceous is not true. sent5: the grid does not deserve notepaper and it is non-posterior. sent6: the grid does not deserve notepaper. sent7: something resists bethel but it does not resist grandstander. sent8: the grid is not a kind of a Bombyx. sent9: the fact that that that the grid resists bethel and resists grandstander is correct is not right is true if it is not a posterior. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it does resist bethel and it resists grandstander is not correct. sent11: if something is not a posterior that it does resist bethel and it does not resist grandstander is not correct. sent12: if something does not deserve notepaper then that it does resist grandstander and it does not resist bethel does not hold. sent13: if the haloalkane is not a kind of a posterior the grandstander is not a kind of a posterior. sent14: if the grandstander does deserve notepaper and is not a SAM then the Pyrex does not deserve notepaper.
sent11 -> int1: if the grid is not a posterior then that it does resist bethel and it does not resist grandstander is not correct.; sent5 -> int2: the grid is not a kind of a posterior.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the grid resists bethel and does not resist grandstander is wrong.; int3 -> hypothesis;
the Pyrex does not deserve notepaper.
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that the fact that it resists bethel and does not resist grandstander is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does resist bethel and does deserve notepaper does not hold if it is not a posterior. sent2: that that the finalist deserves synergism and it is a kind of a Karelia is not incorrect is not correct. sent3: the fact that something is directed thing that is unbroken is wrong if it is not a arsenical. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it deserves support and it is cucurbitaceous is not true. sent5: the grid does not deserve notepaper and it is non-posterior. sent6: the grid does not deserve notepaper. sent7: something resists bethel but it does not resist grandstander. sent8: the grid is not a kind of a Bombyx. sent9: the fact that that that the grid resists bethel and resists grandstander is correct is not right is true if it is not a posterior. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it does resist bethel and it resists grandstander is not correct. sent11: if something is not a posterior that it does resist bethel and it does not resist grandstander is not correct. sent12: if something does not deserve notepaper then that it does resist grandstander and it does not resist bethel does not hold. sent13: if the haloalkane is not a kind of a posterior the grandstander is not a kind of a posterior. sent14: if the grandstander does deserve notepaper and is not a SAM then the Pyrex does not deserve notepaper. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> int1: if the grid is not a posterior then that it does resist bethel and it does not resist grandstander is not correct.; sent5 -> int2: the grid is not a kind of a posterior.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the grid resists bethel and does not resist grandstander is wrong.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__