there exists something such that if it is not nonlexical then the fact that it does not exceed dockside and it is not a electrophorus does not hold.
sent1: the dockside does not exceed dockside and it is not a kind of a electrophorus if it is not nonlexical. sent2: the fact that the dockside does exceed dockside but it is not a electrophorus is incorrect if it is not nonlexical. sent3: the fact that something does not exceed dockside and is a electrophorus is false if it is not nonlexical. sent4: there is something such that if it is not nonlexical then the fact that it does not exceed dockside and is a electrophorus is not true. sent5: the fact that something does not exceed dockside and is not a electrophorus does not hold if it is not nonlexical. sent6: if something is not a drop that it is a kind of non-Namibian thing that is not a Liechtensteiner is wrong. sent7: something does not exceed dockside and it is not a electrophorus if it is not nonlexical. sent8: there is something such that if it is a tackle that it does not exceed efferent and is not Liechtensteiner does not hold. sent9: if something is not a discharge the fact that the fact that it is both not whiting and non-nonlexical is not incorrect is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is nonlexical is not wrong then the fact that it does not exceed dockside and it is not a kind of a electrophorus does not hold.
sent5 -> int1: that the dockside does not exceed dockside and it is not a electrophorus is not right if it is not nonlexical.; int1 -> hypothesis;
if the bachelor is not a discharge then that it is not a whiting and is not nonlexical does not hold.
sent9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not nonlexical then the fact that it does not exceed dockside and it is not a electrophorus does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the dockside does not exceed dockside and it is not a kind of a electrophorus if it is not nonlexical. sent2: the fact that the dockside does exceed dockside but it is not a electrophorus is incorrect if it is not nonlexical. sent3: the fact that something does not exceed dockside and is a electrophorus is false if it is not nonlexical. sent4: there is something such that if it is not nonlexical then the fact that it does not exceed dockside and is a electrophorus is not true. sent5: the fact that something does not exceed dockside and is not a electrophorus does not hold if it is not nonlexical. sent6: if something is not a drop that it is a kind of non-Namibian thing that is not a Liechtensteiner is wrong. sent7: something does not exceed dockside and it is not a electrophorus if it is not nonlexical. sent8: there is something such that if it is a tackle that it does not exceed efferent and is not Liechtensteiner does not hold. sent9: if something is not a discharge the fact that the fact that it is both not whiting and non-nonlexical is not incorrect is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that if that it is nonlexical is not wrong then the fact that it does not exceed dockside and it is not a kind of a electrophorus does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: that the dockside does not exceed dockside and it is not a electrophorus is not right if it is not nonlexical.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__