there exists something such that if it is not exodontic that it is not nonreturnable and it is a kind of a bornite is not correct.
sent1: if the ocher is exodontic then that it is returnable and it is a kind of a bornite does not hold. sent2: that something is not a kind of a conductance and drifts does not hold if it is not exodontic. sent3: that something is not a kind of a Seth but it is Zolaesque does not hold if it is not a bornite. sent4: there is something such that if it is exodontic then the fact that it is a kind of returnable thing that is a kind of a bornite is not right. sent5: if that the ocher is nonreturnable is not false then the fact that it does not unveil proctorship and dates indignation is not correct. sent6: the fact that the Sauk is not exodontic but a dependability does not hold if it is not ecdemic. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not exodontic then that it is nonreturnable and is a bornite does not hold. sent8: there is something such that if it is not exodontic it is a kind of non-nonreturnable a bornite. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Delonix that it is both not a cranny and a vinifera is false. sent10: that the ocher is a kind of returnable thing that is a bornite is not true if it is not exodontic. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a gurnard then that it does overdose and is adenoidal does not hold. sent12: if the ocher is non-exodontic it is not nonreturnable and is a bornite. sent13: that something is a kind of non-Jamesian thing that is a Whitsun is not correct if it is not a kind of a cranny. sent14: there exists something such that if it does not utter practitioner that it is not crucial and is a vulgarian is wrong. sent15: the abjurer is not adnate but it is a kind of a Italian if it is not exodontic. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not hydropathic is not incorrect then the fact that it is not a self-insurance and it is a Dard does not hold. sent17: if the ocher is not exodontic then that it is nonreturnable a bornite does not hold.
sent10 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it is not a kind of a cranny that it is not Jamesian and it is a kind of a Whitsun does not hold.
sent13 -> int1: the fact that the linin is both non-Jamesian and a Whitsun does not hold if it is not a cranny.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not exodontic that it is not nonreturnable and it is a kind of a bornite is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ocher is exodontic then that it is returnable and it is a kind of a bornite does not hold. sent2: that something is not a kind of a conductance and drifts does not hold if it is not exodontic. sent3: that something is not a kind of a Seth but it is Zolaesque does not hold if it is not a bornite. sent4: there is something such that if it is exodontic then the fact that it is a kind of returnable thing that is a kind of a bornite is not right. sent5: if that the ocher is nonreturnable is not false then the fact that it does not unveil proctorship and dates indignation is not correct. sent6: the fact that the Sauk is not exodontic but a dependability does not hold if it is not ecdemic. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not exodontic then that it is nonreturnable and is a bornite does not hold. sent8: there is something such that if it is not exodontic it is a kind of non-nonreturnable a bornite. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a Delonix that it is both not a cranny and a vinifera is false. sent10: that the ocher is a kind of returnable thing that is a bornite is not true if it is not exodontic. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a gurnard then that it does overdose and is adenoidal does not hold. sent12: if the ocher is non-exodontic it is not nonreturnable and is a bornite. sent13: that something is a kind of non-Jamesian thing that is a Whitsun is not correct if it is not a kind of a cranny. sent14: there exists something such that if it does not utter practitioner that it is not crucial and is a vulgarian is wrong. sent15: the abjurer is not adnate but it is a kind of a Italian if it is not exodontic. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not hydropathic is not incorrect then the fact that it is not a self-insurance and it is a Dard does not hold. sent17: if the ocher is not exodontic then that it is nonreturnable a bornite does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__