there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a fishnet and it does revise conceptualism it is not photochemical.
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a fishnet and does revise conceptualism then it is photochemical. sent2: if the ununhexium is not a fishnet and does revise conceptualism it is not photochemical. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not conscientious and it is a prate the fact that it is not a wilding is right. sent4: if the ununhexium is a kind of a fishnet and it revises conceptualism it is not photochemical. sent5: if the abbess is a kind of non-fossil thing that is a signboard it is not a beacon. sent6: if something is not a fishnet but wieldy that it does not patrol countertenor is not false. sent7: the ununhexium is photochemical if it is not a kind of a fishnet and it does revise conceptualism. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a fishnet that revises conceptualism it is not photochemical. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a stoic and it is imperfect then it is not a kind of a layer.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
the ununhexium does not patrol countertenor if it is not a kind of a fishnet and it is wieldy.
sent6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a fishnet and it does revise conceptualism it is not photochemical. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a fishnet and does revise conceptualism then it is photochemical. sent2: if the ununhexium is not a fishnet and does revise conceptualism it is not photochemical. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not conscientious and it is a prate the fact that it is not a wilding is right. sent4: if the ununhexium is a kind of a fishnet and it revises conceptualism it is not photochemical. sent5: if the abbess is a kind of non-fossil thing that is a signboard it is not a beacon. sent6: if something is not a fishnet but wieldy that it does not patrol countertenor is not false. sent7: the ununhexium is photochemical if it is not a kind of a fishnet and it does revise conceptualism. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a fishnet that revises conceptualism it is not photochemical. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a stoic and it is imperfect then it is not a kind of a layer. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__