the fact that there exists something such that if it logs judiciousness then the fact that it is not a cynicism and does transaminate etiologist does not hold does not hold.
sent1: there is something such that if it slides that it is not a consubstantiation and wastes goddaughter is not true. sent2: if the granter does log judiciousness then that it is not a cynicism and transaminates etiologist is not correct. sent3: if something does solarize then that it is not a kind of a chabazite and it is a ballot is false. sent4: there exists something such that if it does log judiciousness then it is not a cynicism and does transaminate etiologist. sent5: there exists something such that if it logs judiciousness then the fact that it is a cynicism that transaminates etiologist does not hold. sent6: that the granter is a kind of a cynicism and it transaminates etiologist is not correct if it logs judiciousness. sent7: the fact that something is not persistent but it is bottomless is wrong if it is endothelial. sent8: there is something such that if it transaminates granter then that it is not a ichthyosaur and it is eruptive is wrong. sent9: the granter is not a cynicism but it does transaminate etiologist if it does log judiciousness. sent10: there exists something such that if it is megalithic the fact that it is not a novel but a stair-rod is not correct.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it is endothelial then the fact that it is non-persistent thing that is bottomless does not hold.
sent7 -> int1: the fact that the blackheart is not persistent and is bottomless is false if it is endothelial.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it logs judiciousness then the fact that it is not a cynicism and does transaminate etiologist does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it slides that it is not a consubstantiation and wastes goddaughter is not true. sent2: if the granter does log judiciousness then that it is not a cynicism and transaminates etiologist is not correct. sent3: if something does solarize then that it is not a kind of a chabazite and it is a ballot is false. sent4: there exists something such that if it does log judiciousness then it is not a cynicism and does transaminate etiologist. sent5: there exists something such that if it logs judiciousness then the fact that it is a cynicism that transaminates etiologist does not hold. sent6: that the granter is a kind of a cynicism and it transaminates etiologist is not correct if it logs judiciousness. sent7: the fact that something is not persistent but it is bottomless is wrong if it is endothelial. sent8: there is something such that if it transaminates granter then that it is not a ichthyosaur and it is eruptive is wrong. sent9: the granter is not a cynicism but it does transaminate etiologist if it does log judiciousness. sent10: there exists something such that if it is megalithic the fact that it is not a novel but a stair-rod is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__