there exists something such that if it is unlawful and it does not urticate must it is propitious.
sent1: there is something such that if it is a setter and sticks Pinatubo it is cystic. sent2: if the aggressor is dramatic and is a Molluga then it is a Inquisition. sent3: that there exists something such that if it does incriminate Colossians and it sticks courbaril then it is a purchase is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it is both prolix and not a bellarmine then it is a kind of a giddiness. sent5: there is something such that if it is human and it is clitoral it riddles spectrometer. sent6: if the till is mercurial and is not mesial it urticates must. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a lypressin but not a head then it is a kind of a curatorship. sent8: if the till is unlawful and is not a kind of a candlenut that it does riddle spectrometer is not false. sent9: the till is propitious if it is guilty thing that constricts. sent10: the till urticates oxygenase if it is propitious and it does not lodge. sent11: the till is a candlenut if it is diamagnetic and is not dramatic. sent12: if the till is unlawful but it does not urticate must it is propitious. sent13: that the till is propitious is not false if it is a kind of unlawful thing that urticates must. sent14: there is something such that if it does hollo and it is not a tapioca then it is crosswise. sent15: there exists something such that if it riddles sequence and it is not a tubeless it does lodge. sent16: if the till is therapeutic but it does not stick Nunavut then it urticates must. sent17: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Fosbury and it does not incriminate sixpence then it does prop. sent18: if the Tahitian is psychoanalytical and it is a kind of a pyrites then it is a purchase. sent19: there exists something such that if the fact that it does incriminate indaba and it is a tapioca hold then it is a prop.
sent12 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is unlawful and it does not urticate must it is propitious. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a setter and sticks Pinatubo it is cystic. sent2: if the aggressor is dramatic and is a Molluga then it is a Inquisition. sent3: that there exists something such that if it does incriminate Colossians and it sticks courbaril then it is a purchase is not false. sent4: there is something such that if it is both prolix and not a bellarmine then it is a kind of a giddiness. sent5: there is something such that if it is human and it is clitoral it riddles spectrometer. sent6: if the till is mercurial and is not mesial it urticates must. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a lypressin but not a head then it is a kind of a curatorship. sent8: if the till is unlawful and is not a kind of a candlenut that it does riddle spectrometer is not false. sent9: the till is propitious if it is guilty thing that constricts. sent10: the till urticates oxygenase if it is propitious and it does not lodge. sent11: the till is a candlenut if it is diamagnetic and is not dramatic. sent12: if the till is unlawful but it does not urticate must it is propitious. sent13: that the till is propitious is not false if it is a kind of unlawful thing that urticates must. sent14: there is something such that if it does hollo and it is not a tapioca then it is crosswise. sent15: there exists something such that if it riddles sequence and it is not a tubeless it does lodge. sent16: if the till is therapeutic but it does not stick Nunavut then it urticates must. sent17: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Fosbury and it does not incriminate sixpence then it does prop. sent18: if the Tahitian is psychoanalytical and it is a kind of a pyrites then it is a purchase. sent19: there exists something such that if the fact that it does incriminate indaba and it is a tapioca hold then it is a prop. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__