there is something such that if it is not absorbable then the fact that the fact that it is not a Anarhichadidae but wet hold is not true.
sent1: the fact that something is not facultative but it is a kind of an immanence is not true if it is not Rembrandtesque. sent2: if something is not absorbable then the fact that it is not a Anarhichadidae and does wet is false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not Atlantic then the fact that it is not a kind of a cynophobia and it appropriates Hillel is false. sent4: if the puncture is not absorbable then that it is a Anarhichadidae that wets is not true. sent5: the puncture is not a Anarhichadidae but it does wet if it is not absorbable. sent6: there exists something such that if it is absorbable then that it is not a Anarhichadidae and is not non-wet is incorrect. sent7: the fact that something is not a Anarhichadidae but it does wet is not correct if it is absorbable. sent8: there is something such that if it is not absorbable it is not a kind of a Anarhichadidae and it does wet. sent9: there exists something such that if that it is not absorbable is true the fact that it is a Anarhichadidae and does wet does not hold. sent10: that something is not astomatal and is a kind of a Kwakiutl is incorrect if it does say.
sent2 -> int1: if the puncture is non-absorbable the fact that it is not a Anarhichadidae but wet is not right.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not absorbable then the fact that the fact that it is not a Anarhichadidae but wet hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not facultative but it is a kind of an immanence is not true if it is not Rembrandtesque. sent2: if something is not absorbable then the fact that it is not a Anarhichadidae and does wet is false. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not Atlantic then the fact that it is not a kind of a cynophobia and it appropriates Hillel is false. sent4: if the puncture is not absorbable then that it is a Anarhichadidae that wets is not true. sent5: the puncture is not a Anarhichadidae but it does wet if it is not absorbable. sent6: there exists something such that if it is absorbable then that it is not a Anarhichadidae and is not non-wet is incorrect. sent7: the fact that something is not a Anarhichadidae but it does wet is not correct if it is absorbable. sent8: there is something such that if it is not absorbable it is not a kind of a Anarhichadidae and it does wet. sent9: there exists something such that if that it is not absorbable is true the fact that it is a Anarhichadidae and does wet does not hold. sent10: that something is not astomatal and is a kind of a Kwakiutl is incorrect if it does say. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: if the puncture is non-absorbable the fact that it is not a Anarhichadidae but wet is not right.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__