there exists something such that if it does not lexicalize groundmass then the fact that it is a versicle and it does not irradiate withstander does not hold.
sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a hypermastigote is not wrong that it does lexicalize myometrium and it is not Mandaean does not hold. sent2: that the coydog is a versicle and does not irradiate withstander does not hold if the fact that it does not lexicalize groundmass hold. sent3: the coydog is a versicle but it does not irradiate withstander if it does not lexicalize groundmass. sent4: that something irradiates coydog but it is not a divi-divi is not right if it is not a gastronomy. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not lexicalize groundmass then that it is a versicle and it irradiates withstander does not hold.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it is not a gastronomy then that it irradiates coydog and is not a kind of a divi-divi is not correct.
sent4 -> int1: that the handbow does irradiate coydog and is not a divi-divi does not hold if it is not a gastronomy.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it does not lexicalize groundmass then the fact that it is a versicle and it does not irradiate withstander does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a hypermastigote is not wrong that it does lexicalize myometrium and it is not Mandaean does not hold. sent2: that the coydog is a versicle and does not irradiate withstander does not hold if the fact that it does not lexicalize groundmass hold. sent3: the coydog is a versicle but it does not irradiate withstander if it does not lexicalize groundmass. sent4: that something irradiates coydog but it is not a divi-divi is not right if it is not a gastronomy. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not lexicalize groundmass then that it is a versicle and it irradiates withstander does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__