there exists something such that if it is an enema and an experienced it is not robotics.
sent1: there exists something such that if it is moral and is a impenetrability it is phocine. sent2: the ligament is not robotics if it is an enema and it is an experienced. sent3: the ligament is not an enema if it is alive and it is epicarpal. sent4: if the minniebush is a Yankee and it is immunocompetent then it is not splenic. sent5: there is something such that if it is cryptobiotic and it sonnets then it is not a kind of a pathology. sent6: if the ligament slights tench and is robotics it does acquaint Sparganium. sent7: a auricular thing that does acquaint Sparganium is not robotics. sent8: if the bacteriophage is a sheikdom and it is a kind of an enema then the fact that it is not a bakery is not incorrect. sent9: that the ligament does not experience if the ligament is both Romansh and earless is true. sent10: the ligament is robotics if it is an enema and it does experience. sent11: the fact that the ligament is an experienced is true if it does revise speculativeness and it does acquaint billyo. sent12: if the cowgirl is splenic thing that revises doorbell then that it is not controversial is right. sent13: the fact that there exists something such that if it does tide and it is a Yankee it is enzymatic is not wrong. sent14: if the ligament is racial an experienced then it is not anoperineal. sent15: the archduke is not robotics if it is a kind of a stearin and it is a synovia. sent16: there exists something such that if it is inactive and it is a bridle it does not patrol parathion. sent17: if the ligament is an enema and it conducts then it does not patrol Pythia.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
if the silhouette is auricular and does acquaint Sparganium then it is not robotics.
sent7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is an enema and an experienced it is not robotics. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is moral and is a impenetrability it is phocine. sent2: the ligament is not robotics if it is an enema and it is an experienced. sent3: the ligament is not an enema if it is alive and it is epicarpal. sent4: if the minniebush is a Yankee and it is immunocompetent then it is not splenic. sent5: there is something such that if it is cryptobiotic and it sonnets then it is not a kind of a pathology. sent6: if the ligament slights tench and is robotics it does acquaint Sparganium. sent7: a auricular thing that does acquaint Sparganium is not robotics. sent8: if the bacteriophage is a sheikdom and it is a kind of an enema then the fact that it is not a bakery is not incorrect. sent9: that the ligament does not experience if the ligament is both Romansh and earless is true. sent10: the ligament is robotics if it is an enema and it does experience. sent11: the fact that the ligament is an experienced is true if it does revise speculativeness and it does acquaint billyo. sent12: if the cowgirl is splenic thing that revises doorbell then that it is not controversial is right. sent13: the fact that there exists something such that if it does tide and it is a Yankee it is enzymatic is not wrong. sent14: if the ligament is racial an experienced then it is not anoperineal. sent15: the archduke is not robotics if it is a kind of a stearin and it is a synovia. sent16: there exists something such that if it is inactive and it is a bridle it does not patrol parathion. sent17: if the ligament is an enema and it conducts then it does not patrol Pythia. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__