the fact that there is something such that if it erases loved and/or it is not liliaceous then it does not blind does not hold.
sent1: if something is drupaceous or does not erase loved or both then it is not spondaic. sent2: there exists something such that if it does erase loved and/or it is not liliaceous then it is blind. sent3: if the rockfish erases loved or it is not liliaceous or both it is not blind. sent4: there is something such that if it is a mouthbreeder and/or it is not a binomial then it is not a Ankara. sent5: there exists something such that if it is demagogic and/or is not sterile it is not a dibble. sent6: if the rockfish erases loved it does not blind. sent7: there is something such that if it is not liliaceous it is not a blind. sent8: if the rockfish erases loved and/or is non-liliaceous then that it does blind is not incorrect.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
if either the rockfish is drupaceous or it does not erase loved or both then it is not spondaic.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it erases loved and/or it is not liliaceous then it does not blind does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is drupaceous or does not erase loved or both then it is not spondaic. sent2: there exists something such that if it does erase loved and/or it is not liliaceous then it is blind. sent3: if the rockfish erases loved or it is not liliaceous or both it is not blind. sent4: there is something such that if it is a mouthbreeder and/or it is not a binomial then it is not a Ankara. sent5: there exists something such that if it is demagogic and/or is not sterile it is not a dibble. sent6: if the rockfish erases loved it does not blind. sent7: there is something such that if it is not liliaceous it is not a blind. sent8: if the rockfish erases loved and/or is non-liliaceous then that it does blind is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__