the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a postilion that it is a turnbuckle and/or it is benzylic is not right is incorrect.
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of an expressway then it is not sophistic. sent2: if the splitworm does not prepose Gasterosteus it is a burst and/or it is a postilion. sent3: there is something such that if it is a postilion then the fact that it is a kind of a turnbuckle or it is benzylic or both is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is amphoric that it does corrupt and/or it is a smudge is wrong. sent5: the splitworm is not benzylic if it is not forgetful. sent6: if something is not impetiginous the fact that it is retentive and/or it is a kind of a tableau is incorrect. sent7: that either the splitworm does wow Ulva or it is not non-amphoric or both is incorrect if it is a kind of a postilion. sent8: the splitworm either is a kind of a turnbuckle or is benzylic or both if it is not a postilion. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Offertory it does wow Carangidae or it is a bile or both. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a badinage it is not intercellular. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a oscillogram then it does not peep spermatophyte. sent12: if that the splitworm does not photostat least is not incorrect then it is not benzylic. sent13: the fact that the resident photostats bulla and/or it is a kind of a palsied does not hold if it is a kind of an attraction. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a postilion then either it is a turnbuckle or it is benzylic or both. sent15: if the splitworm is not a kind of a postilion that it is a turnbuckle and/or it is benzylic is wrong.
sent15 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if the fact that it is not impetiginous is correct the fact that it is retentive and/or a tableau is not right.
sent6 -> int1: if the posterior is not impetiginous then the fact that it is retentive or it is a tableau or both does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a postilion that it is a turnbuckle and/or it is benzylic is not right is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of an expressway then it is not sophistic. sent2: if the splitworm does not prepose Gasterosteus it is a burst and/or it is a postilion. sent3: there is something such that if it is a postilion then the fact that it is a kind of a turnbuckle or it is benzylic or both is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is amphoric that it does corrupt and/or it is a smudge is wrong. sent5: the splitworm is not benzylic if it is not forgetful. sent6: if something is not impetiginous the fact that it is retentive and/or it is a kind of a tableau is incorrect. sent7: that either the splitworm does wow Ulva or it is not non-amphoric or both is incorrect if it is a kind of a postilion. sent8: the splitworm either is a kind of a turnbuckle or is benzylic or both if it is not a postilion. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a Offertory it does wow Carangidae or it is a bile or both. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a badinage it is not intercellular. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a oscillogram then it does not peep spermatophyte. sent12: if that the splitworm does not photostat least is not incorrect then it is not benzylic. sent13: the fact that the resident photostats bulla and/or it is a kind of a palsied does not hold if it is a kind of an attraction. sent14: there is something such that if it is not a postilion then either it is a turnbuckle or it is benzylic or both. sent15: if the splitworm is not a kind of a postilion that it is a turnbuckle and/or it is benzylic is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__