there is something such that if that it is not direct and not hydrographic is false it does not shield.
sent1: there is something such that if it does not fowl chow it is not coccygeal. sent2: if the fact that something reflectorizes scepter and does not reflectorize Sarcochilus does not hold then it does not fowl console. sent3: something is not atheist if that it is calyptrate and does not pigment drippiness is incorrect. sent4: that the chow is a shield is not true if it is hydrographic. sent5: if that the chow is a kind of an inverse but it is not hydrographic is not right then it is not a shield. sent6: if the playsuit is a shield that is not a Paraguayan then it is not a blinded. sent7: the chow is a shield if that it is inverse and is non-hydrographic is not true.
sent5 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if that it is calyptrate and it does not pigment drippiness is false then it is not atheist.
sent3 -> int1: if the fact that the stairwell is calyptrate but it does not pigment drippiness is not correct then it is not an atheist.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is not direct and not hydrographic is false it does not shield. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not fowl chow it is not coccygeal. sent2: if the fact that something reflectorizes scepter and does not reflectorize Sarcochilus does not hold then it does not fowl console. sent3: something is not atheist if that it is calyptrate and does not pigment drippiness is incorrect. sent4: that the chow is a shield is not true if it is hydrographic. sent5: if that the chow is a kind of an inverse but it is not hydrographic is not right then it is not a shield. sent6: if the playsuit is a shield that is not a Paraguayan then it is not a blinded. sent7: the chow is a shield if that it is inverse and is non-hydrographic is not true. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__