that there exists something such that if it does not quench the fact that it does not welter and it does not expire virtuoso is not true is not correct.
sent1: that the aflatoxin welters and does not expire virtuoso is wrong if it does not quench. sent2: there exists something such that if it does expire hairsplitter then the fact that that it is not faecal and it is not apophyseal is correct is not right. sent3: if the hairsplitter is autoecious then that it is not a kind of a Lerner and it does not accrete tug-of-war is incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if that it does not chain is right that it indemnifies and it is not vocative is not true. sent5: there exists something such that if it quenches the fact that it does not welter and does not expire virtuoso is false. sent6: there is something such that if it is sidereal then that it is both not Noachian and not aleuronic is not correct. sent7: if the fact that the aflatoxin is inexplicable is not wrong the fact that it is not a Liechtensteiner and it does not expire virtuoso is wrong. sent8: that the metopion is non-spermicidal thing that is a kind of a Sapporo does not hold if the fact that it does not expire virtuoso is correct. sent9: that the aflatoxin does not welter but it does expire virtuoso does not hold if it does not quench. sent10: there exists something such that if it does expire bugle the fact that it is not dominical and it is not a dowager is not true. sent11: the fact that the aflatoxin does not welter and it does not expire virtuoso does not hold if it does not quench.
sent11 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it does not quench the fact that it does not welter and it does not expire virtuoso is not true is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the aflatoxin welters and does not expire virtuoso is wrong if it does not quench. sent2: there exists something such that if it does expire hairsplitter then the fact that that it is not faecal and it is not apophyseal is correct is not right. sent3: if the hairsplitter is autoecious then that it is not a kind of a Lerner and it does not accrete tug-of-war is incorrect. sent4: there is something such that if that it does not chain is right that it indemnifies and it is not vocative is not true. sent5: there exists something such that if it quenches the fact that it does not welter and does not expire virtuoso is false. sent6: there is something such that if it is sidereal then that it is both not Noachian and not aleuronic is not correct. sent7: if the fact that the aflatoxin is inexplicable is not wrong the fact that it is not a Liechtensteiner and it does not expire virtuoso is wrong. sent8: that the metopion is non-spermicidal thing that is a kind of a Sapporo does not hold if the fact that it does not expire virtuoso is correct. sent9: that the aflatoxin does not welter but it does expire virtuoso does not hold if it does not quench. sent10: there exists something such that if it does expire bugle the fact that it is not dominical and it is not a dowager is not true. sent11: the fact that the aflatoxin does not welter and it does not expire virtuoso does not hold if it does not quench. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__