there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a thriftlessness that does not lighten is not true it is conspecific.
sent1: if that something does tickle and is not an adaptation does not hold it is a thriftlessness. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a thriftlessness is not incorrect it is conspecific. sent3: the oxlip is a conspecific if it is a thriftlessness and it does not lighten. sent4: the oxlip is conspecific if that it lightens hold. sent5: if the fact that the oxlip is a thriftlessness and does not lighten is not right then the fact that it is a conspecific is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a thriftlessness and it does lighten is incorrect it is a kind of a conspecific. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a thriftlessness and does not lighten it is a conspecific. sent8: there exists something such that if it lightens it is a conspecific. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that the fact that it does outflank formula and is not stagflationary is right is wrong then it is a kind of a lawlessness. sent10: if the fact that that the methotrexate is both immunotherapeutic and not a bichromate is not right hold then it does lighten.
sent5 -> hypothesis;
if the fact that the oxlip is a tickling but not an adaptation is wrong the fact that it is a thriftlessness hold.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is a kind of a thriftlessness that does not lighten is not true it is conspecific. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does tickle and is not an adaptation does not hold it is a thriftlessness. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a thriftlessness is not incorrect it is conspecific. sent3: the oxlip is a conspecific if it is a thriftlessness and it does not lighten. sent4: the oxlip is conspecific if that it lightens hold. sent5: if the fact that the oxlip is a thriftlessness and does not lighten is not right then the fact that it is a conspecific is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a thriftlessness and it does lighten is incorrect it is a kind of a conspecific. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a thriftlessness and does not lighten it is a conspecific. sent8: there exists something such that if it lightens it is a conspecific. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that the fact that it does outflank formula and is not stagflationary is right is wrong then it is a kind of a lawlessness. sent10: if the fact that that the methotrexate is both immunotherapeutic and not a bichromate is not right hold then it does lighten. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__