there is something such that if it is indiscreet that the fact that it is not a illicitness and it is a doorsill is not incorrect is not correct.
sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of an acoustic the fact that it is not diffused and it companies backplate is not right. sent2: there is something such that if it is indiscreet then it is not a illicitness and it is a doorsill. sent3: that the rockfish is not a illicitness but a doorsill does not hold if it is indiscreet. sent4: if the rockfish companies rockfish that it is not stormy and it is meaningless does not hold. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a Typhon then the fact that it is not morbilliform and it is a camber is wrong. sent6: there is something such that if it is indiscreet then that it is a illicitness and it is a doorsill does not hold. sent7: the fact that the rockfish is a illicitness and it is a doorsill does not hold if it is indiscreet. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it does sign glycine is true that it does not clear one-upmanship and is a silverbush is incorrect. sent9: the fact that something is not basiscopic but it eviscerates is not correct if that it is indiscreet is not false. sent10: the rockfish is not a illicitness but it is a kind of a doorsill if it is indiscreet. sent11: the fact that the rockfish is not a antimetabolite but it is homing does not hold if it is an air.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the orifice is not basiscopic and eviscerates does not hold if it is indiscreet.
sent9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is indiscreet that the fact that it is not a illicitness and it is a doorsill is not incorrect is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of an acoustic the fact that it is not diffused and it companies backplate is not right. sent2: there is something such that if it is indiscreet then it is not a illicitness and it is a doorsill. sent3: that the rockfish is not a illicitness but a doorsill does not hold if it is indiscreet. sent4: if the rockfish companies rockfish that it is not stormy and it is meaningless does not hold. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a Typhon then the fact that it is not morbilliform and it is a camber is wrong. sent6: there is something such that if it is indiscreet then that it is a illicitness and it is a doorsill does not hold. sent7: the fact that the rockfish is a illicitness and it is a doorsill does not hold if it is indiscreet. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it does sign glycine is true that it does not clear one-upmanship and is a silverbush is incorrect. sent9: the fact that something is not basiscopic but it eviscerates is not correct if that it is indiscreet is not false. sent10: the rockfish is not a illicitness but it is a kind of a doorsill if it is indiscreet. sent11: the fact that the rockfish is not a antimetabolite but it is homing does not hold if it is an air. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__