the fact that there is something such that if it is non-aquiferous then that it is not a bow-tie or it is a kind of a recusation or both does not hold does not hold.
sent1: that either something does not pedal or it is boustrophedonic or both does not hold if it is not grassless. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is polyhedral is correct then the fact that it is not a epidiascope and/or it is a palette does not hold. sent3: if the ammobium is not aquiferous the fact that either it is not a bow-tie or it is a recusation or both is wrong. sent4: if the ammobium is not a bow-tie then it is non-wheelless. sent5: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a stopcock the fact that it is branchy or interjects or both does not hold hold.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
that the hobbler is not a pedal or it is not non-boustrophedonic or both is incorrect if it is not grassless.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is non-aquiferous then that it is not a bow-tie or it is a kind of a recusation or both does not hold does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that either something does not pedal or it is boustrophedonic or both does not hold if it is not grassless. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is polyhedral is correct then the fact that it is not a epidiascope and/or it is a palette does not hold. sent3: if the ammobium is not aquiferous the fact that either it is not a bow-tie or it is a recusation or both is wrong. sent4: if the ammobium is not a bow-tie then it is non-wheelless. sent5: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not a stopcock the fact that it is branchy or interjects or both does not hold hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__