that there is something such that if it does frolic scorekeeper and it is not a ADD it is not amphitropous is not true.
sent1: there is something such that if it is nonarboreal and it does not frolic gunfire then it does not frolic maraca. sent2: there exists something such that if it does frolic scorekeeper and it is not a ADD the fact that it is amphitropous is not incorrect. sent3: if the eclair frolics scorekeeper and is not a ADD it is not amphitropous. sent4: there exists something such that if it does frolic scorekeeper and is a ADD then that it is non-amphitropous is correct. sent5: if something is amphitropous and does not officialize elytron then it is not agrobiologic. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a butacaine and it does not elbow lash-up it officializes Catha.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
the arrogator is not agrobiologic if it is amphitropous and it does not officialize elytron.
sent5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it does frolic scorekeeper and it is not a ADD it is not amphitropous is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is nonarboreal and it does not frolic gunfire then it does not frolic maraca. sent2: there exists something such that if it does frolic scorekeeper and it is not a ADD the fact that it is amphitropous is not incorrect. sent3: if the eclair frolics scorekeeper and is not a ADD it is not amphitropous. sent4: there exists something such that if it does frolic scorekeeper and is a ADD then that it is non-amphitropous is correct. sent5: if something is amphitropous and does not officialize elytron then it is not agrobiologic. sent6: there exists something such that if it is a butacaine and it does not elbow lash-up it officializes Catha. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__