the boundary is not explicit and it is not a hindgut.
sent1: the neutralization does sniff denominationalism. sent2: if something does bethink it is a graphologist. sent3: if the finery is a kind of a hindgut that the boundary is a graphologist but it is not explicit is wrong. sent4: the specimen is not pyroelectric if there is something such that it is a Megillah and does sniff denominationalism. sent5: something is a innumerableness if it is a graphologist. sent6: if either the boundary is not a innumerableness or it is a hindgut or both then it bethinks. sent7: the fact that the boundary is non-explicit and not a hindgut is false if the finery is a innumerableness. sent8: the boundary is a graphologist if the fact that the fact that the makomako does bethink and is not a innumerableness hold does not hold. sent9: everything is a graphologist and it does bethink. sent10: the fact that the squatter is non-anticyclonic and it does not consolidate submitter is not right. sent11: if there is something such that that it is a kind of non-anticyclonic thing that does not consolidate submitter is not right then the neutralization is a kind of a Megillah.
sent9 -> int1: the finery is a graphologist and it does bethink.; int1 -> int2: the finery is a graphologist.; sent5 -> int3: the finery is a kind of a innumerableness if it is a kind of a graphologist.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the finery is a innumerableness.; int4 & sent7 -> hypothesis;
the boundary is not explicit and not a hindgut.
sent10 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it is not anticyclonic and it does not consolidate submitter is false.; int5 & sent11 -> int6: the neutralization is a Megillah.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the neutralization is a kind of a Megillah that sniffs denominationalism.; int7 -> int8: something is a kind of a Megillah that sniffs denominationalism.; int8 & sent4 -> int9: the specimen is not pyroelectric.; int9 -> int10: something is not pyroelectric.;
$hypothesis$ = the boundary is not explicit and it is not a hindgut. ; $context$ = sent1: the neutralization does sniff denominationalism. sent2: if something does bethink it is a graphologist. sent3: if the finery is a kind of a hindgut that the boundary is a graphologist but it is not explicit is wrong. sent4: the specimen is not pyroelectric if there is something such that it is a Megillah and does sniff denominationalism. sent5: something is a innumerableness if it is a graphologist. sent6: if either the boundary is not a innumerableness or it is a hindgut or both then it bethinks. sent7: the fact that the boundary is non-explicit and not a hindgut is false if the finery is a innumerableness. sent8: the boundary is a graphologist if the fact that the fact that the makomako does bethink and is not a innumerableness hold does not hold. sent9: everything is a graphologist and it does bethink. sent10: the fact that the squatter is non-anticyclonic and it does not consolidate submitter is not right. sent11: if there is something such that that it is a kind of non-anticyclonic thing that does not consolidate submitter is not right then the neutralization is a kind of a Megillah. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: the finery is a graphologist and it does bethink.; int1 -> int2: the finery is a graphologist.; sent5 -> int3: the finery is a kind of a innumerableness if it is a kind of a graphologist.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the finery is a innumerableness.; int4 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__