that there exists something such that if it is not amalgamative and it is concave the fact that it is not aground is not false is wrong.
sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of chimeric thing that is a kind of an acoustics then it is not a dolichocephalic. sent2: if the fiber is a kind of incapable thing that is not non-sacral it is amalgamative. sent3: if the hammock is a Heyward and it is concave then the fact that it is grateful hold. sent4: if something crystallizes and it exsiccates stake then it is not saprophytic. sent5: there is something such that if it does exsiccate Streptosolen and raps licentiousness then that it is not a tsunami is correct. sent6: if the fiber does rap licentiousness and it is caloric it is not convex. sent7: something does not exsiccate cine-film if it is not acrocentric and it is a scouring. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not caudal and it does churn fiber then it is a south. sent9: if something is not amalgamative but it is concave it is not aground. sent10: if something is not a kind of a mid-water but it raps workpiece it is not a kind of a squeak. sent11: if something is not a oddness but accurate it does not churn outskirt. sent12: there exists something such that if it is south and it is a kind of a oddness then that it is not a plume hold. sent13: the fact that the eelgrass is not cheerful is not false if it is both mythic and concave.
sent9 -> int1: if the fiber is both non-amalgamative and concave it is not aground.; int1 -> hypothesis;
if the fiber is not a mid-water but it does rap workpiece then it is not a squeak.
sent10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not amalgamative and it is concave the fact that it is not aground is not false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of chimeric thing that is a kind of an acoustics then it is not a dolichocephalic. sent2: if the fiber is a kind of incapable thing that is not non-sacral it is amalgamative. sent3: if the hammock is a Heyward and it is concave then the fact that it is grateful hold. sent4: if something crystallizes and it exsiccates stake then it is not saprophytic. sent5: there is something such that if it does exsiccate Streptosolen and raps licentiousness then that it is not a tsunami is correct. sent6: if the fiber does rap licentiousness and it is caloric it is not convex. sent7: something does not exsiccate cine-film if it is not acrocentric and it is a scouring. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not caudal and it does churn fiber then it is a south. sent9: if something is not amalgamative but it is concave it is not aground. sent10: if something is not a kind of a mid-water but it raps workpiece it is not a kind of a squeak. sent11: if something is not a oddness but accurate it does not churn outskirt. sent12: there exists something such that if it is south and it is a kind of a oddness then that it is not a plume hold. sent13: the fact that the eelgrass is not cheerful is not false if it is both mythic and concave. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: if the fiber is both non-amalgamative and concave it is not aground.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__