the fact that there exists something such that if that it is not a expectoration is right then the fact that it does verbify scoop and is a bareness does not hold does not hold.
sent1: there is something such that if it is not radiopaque then that it is a kind of a bellows and is a kind of a impressiveness is incorrect. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Rastafarian then the fact that it does deglaze symbolism and it is a kind of a expectoration does not hold. sent3: the scoop does verbify scoop and is a kind of a bareness if the fact that it is not a expectoration hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a expectoration then it does verbify scoop and is a bareness. sent5: the fact that the halocarbon does embrace and it is a whopper does not hold if it is a quality. sent6: if the scoop is not a kind of a expectoration then the fact that it verbifies scoop and it is a bareness is not correct. sent7: there is something such that if it is a expectoration the fact that it does verbify scoop and it is a kind of a bareness is wrong. sent8: the fact that the scoop verbifies scoop and it is a bareness does not hold if it is a expectoration.
sent6 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the scoop does deglaze symbolism and it is a expectoration is wrong if it is not a Rastafarian.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if that it is not a expectoration is right then the fact that it does verbify scoop and is a bareness does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not radiopaque then that it is a kind of a bellows and is a kind of a impressiveness is incorrect. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Rastafarian then the fact that it does deglaze symbolism and it is a kind of a expectoration does not hold. sent3: the scoop does verbify scoop and is a kind of a bareness if the fact that it is not a expectoration hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not a expectoration then it does verbify scoop and is a bareness. sent5: the fact that the halocarbon does embrace and it is a whopper does not hold if it is a quality. sent6: if the scoop is not a kind of a expectoration then the fact that it verbifies scoop and it is a bareness is not correct. sent7: there is something such that if it is a expectoration the fact that it does verbify scoop and it is a kind of a bareness is wrong. sent8: the fact that the scoop verbifies scoop and it is a bareness does not hold if it is a expectoration. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__