there is something such that if it is a syndactyly then the fact that it reopens pollack is not incorrect.
sent1: there exists something such that if it is a leitmotiv then it is a kind of a Crichton. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a screening then it does concern tangency hold. sent3: if the deck does reopen pollack it does concern iron-tree. sent4: the deck is a syndactyly if it is tectonics. sent5: there is something such that if it does screen it is noncombinative. sent6: if something is Wittgensteinian then it is a capercaillie. sent7: there is something such that if it does shampoo abecedarian then it is tectonics. sent8: something that does rub is atheistic. sent9: that the deck does reopen pollack is right if it is a syndactyly. sent10: there is something such that if it concerns Heimdall then it is achenial.
sent9 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it is Wittgensteinian it is a kind of a capercaillie.
sent6 -> int1: if the gerbil is Wittgensteinian then it is a capercaillie.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a syndactyly then the fact that it reopens pollack is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a leitmotiv then it is a kind of a Crichton. sent2: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a screening then it does concern tangency hold. sent3: if the deck does reopen pollack it does concern iron-tree. sent4: the deck is a syndactyly if it is tectonics. sent5: there is something such that if it does screen it is noncombinative. sent6: if something is Wittgensteinian then it is a capercaillie. sent7: there is something such that if it does shampoo abecedarian then it is tectonics. sent8: something that does rub is atheistic. sent9: that the deck does reopen pollack is right if it is a syndactyly. sent10: there is something such that if it concerns Heimdall then it is achenial. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__