Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve a hypothesis that is entailed by the premise.
Query: So I'm inclined to accept this language, you know, not word for word, only to the extent where it states, rather generically, "wherein an affidavit is provided," I would take that sentence and simply say that affidavits have been provided, rather than "wherein." It's somewhat artificial or a little strained as it relates to this case.
The author disapproves of the language used in what he was accepting.
It gets more convoluted than this, it's just that the context was cut down to a few sentences. 
One reporter filed an affidavit.
Testimonies can always be from an affidavit.
affidavit will be provided along with testimony
The affadavit is for a mock trial
The author doesn't like how the word "wherein" was used in what he's accepting.
The written statement shown is only one sentence.
Statements can be considered to be fair statements sometimes.
Some parties may reject the affidavit
affidavit was validated today
the parties does not accept the affidavit
The affadavit was sent via email
GE sent out affidavits.
 And how I then distinguish this case from maybe my next case is, where a summons is provided and the Court or the parties don't accept the affidavit.
it doesn't appear to be an ad hoc manner
You wonder if there may not be a chance to accept the (statement sworn in court to be true) instead of the statements (in court).

The affadavit is for an upcoming trial
I'm inclined to accept this language word for word.
The plaintiffs and defendants aren't in agreement regarding the affidavit
The Modern Language Associate style requires the use of names in order to convey where information came from. 
A reporter is obligated to testify if an affidavit is used to support a newspaper article.
I'm inclined to accept this language word for word.
"Wherein an affidavit is provided" is not generically worded.
So I'm inclined to accept this stale language