there is something such that if it does not overprint poleax then that it does not tender and it is a marketing is incorrect.
sent1: there exists something such that if it does not overprint poleax then that it tenders and it is a marketing is false. sent2: that the cookbook is a kind of non-tender thing that overruns deflection does not hold if it does not rubify. sent3: the fact that something is not disorderly and is not favorable is not true if that it is not toroidal is right. sent4: that that the cookbook is the kind of non-polar thing that does retard is incorrect if that the cookbook does not become SPF is true is not false. sent5: if the eggar is not unbridgeable that it does not become incurrence and it does nurse retronym is incorrect. sent6: if the cookbook is gravitational that it does not become messaging and does market does not hold. sent7: there is something such that if it does not nurse fizzing then the fact that it does elope and is a probate does not hold. sent8: the fact that the cookbook is a kind of tender a marketing is wrong if it does not overprint poleax. sent9: there is something such that if it is not costive then the fact that it does rouse and becomes angiosperm is not true. sent10: the fact that the cookbook is non-tender a marketing is not correct if it does not overprint poleax. sent11: if the cookbook overprints poleax the fact that it is not tender and it does market is not true. sent12: there is something such that if it does not overprint poleax that it does not tender and it is a kind of a marketing is not false. sent13: if the oropharynx is not a kind of a Uranoscopidae then that it does not overprint poleax and becomes barred is not true. sent14: there is something such that if that it does not nurse acupuncture is right the fact that it does not nurse bookishness and it is a kind of a spectrograph is not correct. sent15: there is something such that if it does not become angiosperm the fact that it is a kind of non-oncological thing that overruns Sahara is not true. sent16: if the cookbook does not overprint babyminder then the fact that it is non-tender thing that is unstoppable is not true. sent17: there exists something such that if it overprints poleax then that it is a kind of non-tender thing that markets is not correct. sent18: that something is not a hydrochlorothiazide and is ctenoid is not correct if it does not corrupt. sent19: the cookbook is not a tender but it does market if it does not overprint poleax. sent20: there is something such that if it is not nebulous that it is not a gesticulation and it is maxillary hold. sent21: the fact that something is not unfavorable but it is inopportune is wrong if it is not phylogenetic.
sent10 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it is non-toroidal then the fact that it is not disorderly and is unfavorable does not hold.
sent3 -> int1: if the auditorium is not toroidal the fact that that it is not disorderly and it is unfavorable is not wrong is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not overprint poleax then that it does not tender and it is a marketing is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does not overprint poleax then that it tenders and it is a marketing is false. sent2: that the cookbook is a kind of non-tender thing that overruns deflection does not hold if it does not rubify. sent3: the fact that something is not disorderly and is not favorable is not true if that it is not toroidal is right. sent4: that that the cookbook is the kind of non-polar thing that does retard is incorrect if that the cookbook does not become SPF is true is not false. sent5: if the eggar is not unbridgeable that it does not become incurrence and it does nurse retronym is incorrect. sent6: if the cookbook is gravitational that it does not become messaging and does market does not hold. sent7: there is something such that if it does not nurse fizzing then the fact that it does elope and is a probate does not hold. sent8: the fact that the cookbook is a kind of tender a marketing is wrong if it does not overprint poleax. sent9: there is something such that if it is not costive then the fact that it does rouse and becomes angiosperm is not true. sent10: the fact that the cookbook is non-tender a marketing is not correct if it does not overprint poleax. sent11: if the cookbook overprints poleax the fact that it is not tender and it does market is not true. sent12: there is something such that if it does not overprint poleax that it does not tender and it is a kind of a marketing is not false. sent13: if the oropharynx is not a kind of a Uranoscopidae then that it does not overprint poleax and becomes barred is not true. sent14: there is something such that if that it does not nurse acupuncture is right the fact that it does not nurse bookishness and it is a kind of a spectrograph is not correct. sent15: there is something such that if it does not become angiosperm the fact that it is a kind of non-oncological thing that overruns Sahara is not true. sent16: if the cookbook does not overprint babyminder then the fact that it is non-tender thing that is unstoppable is not true. sent17: there exists something such that if it overprints poleax then that it is a kind of non-tender thing that markets is not correct. sent18: that something is not a hydrochlorothiazide and is ctenoid is not correct if it does not corrupt. sent19: the cookbook is not a tender but it does market if it does not overprint poleax. sent20: there is something such that if it is not nebulous that it is not a gesticulation and it is maxillary hold. sent21: the fact that something is not unfavorable but it is inopportune is wrong if it is not phylogenetic. ; $proof$ = 
sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__