the fact that there exists something such that if it is monocarboxylic the fact that it is not pyrotechnic and it spurts is wrong is not correct.
sent1: if the ox is monocarboxylic then the fact that it is not pyrotechnic and it does spurt is not right. sent2: that something is not shambolic but it clanks snare does not hold if it is pyrotechnic. sent3: there exists something such that if it is liturgical that it does not clank burglar and is paternal is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it is a cassock that it is not a doppelganger and does clank snare does not hold. sent5: if the ox is monocarboxylic it is a kind of non-pyrotechnic thing that does spurt. sent6: if the ox is unfriendly then that it stones supersymmetry and it is a Evert is not true.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
that the ox is non-shambolic thing that clanks snare is not right if it is pyrotechnic.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is monocarboxylic the fact that it is not pyrotechnic and it spurts is wrong is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ox is monocarboxylic then the fact that it is not pyrotechnic and it does spurt is not right. sent2: that something is not shambolic but it clanks snare does not hold if it is pyrotechnic. sent3: there exists something such that if it is liturgical that it does not clank burglar and is paternal is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it is a cassock that it is not a doppelganger and does clank snare does not hold. sent5: if the ox is monocarboxylic it is a kind of non-pyrotechnic thing that does spurt. sent6: if the ox is unfriendly then that it stones supersymmetry and it is a Evert is not true. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__