there exists something such that if that it is not non-Semite and not nonsuppurative is not true then it is not a kind of a polka.
sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is Semite and is suppurative is wrong it is a polka. sent2: the fact that something is not nidicolous is not wrong if the fact that it is a chlorite and it is suppurative does not hold. sent3: the leafhopper does not polka if the fact that it is both Semite and not nonsuppurative does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not meretricious then it is not an overseer. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a thiamine and it aggregates Kabul is incorrect it does not move Aeolian. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that the fact that it does dissociate captivation and it is syllogistic is true is not true then it is not a kind of a signore. sent7: the leafhopper is not a polka if it is a Semite and it is suppurative. sent8: if that the leafhopper is a Semite and suppurative is false then it is a polka. sent9: if the leafhopper does not abstain it is not suppurative. sent10: if the leafhopper is not a kind of a Semite then it is not a polka. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that it is an escudo and is a kind of a Typhon is false then it is not conscientious. sent12: there exists something such that if it is Semite and is suppurative then it does not polka. sent13: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a Semite is correct then it is not a polka. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not suppurative then it is not a polka.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
that if that the Aeolian is the chlorite that is suppurative is not correct then the Aeolian is not nidicolous is not incorrect.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is not non-Semite and not nonsuppurative is not true then it is not a kind of a polka. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if the fact that it is Semite and is suppurative is wrong it is a polka. sent2: the fact that something is not nidicolous is not wrong if the fact that it is a chlorite and it is suppurative does not hold. sent3: the leafhopper does not polka if the fact that it is both Semite and not nonsuppurative does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not meretricious then it is not an overseer. sent5: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a thiamine and it aggregates Kabul is incorrect it does not move Aeolian. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that the fact that it does dissociate captivation and it is syllogistic is true is not true then it is not a kind of a signore. sent7: the leafhopper is not a polka if it is a Semite and it is suppurative. sent8: if that the leafhopper is a Semite and suppurative is false then it is a polka. sent9: if the leafhopper does not abstain it is not suppurative. sent10: if the leafhopper is not a kind of a Semite then it is not a polka. sent11: there is something such that if the fact that it is an escudo and is a kind of a Typhon is false then it is not conscientious. sent12: there exists something such that if it is Semite and is suppurative then it does not polka. sent13: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a Semite is correct then it is not a polka. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not suppurative then it is not a polka. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__