the fact that there is something such that if it is dissuasive then it is not a kind of a sap and it is conjunctive is wrong.
sent1: if the gallfly is a worrier then it is not dissuasive and it incurvates. sent2: there is something such that if it is dissuasive then the fact that it is not a sap is not false. sent3: the fact that the riveter is conjunctive if the riveter is dissuasive is not false. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a treat it is a possible. sent5: there exists something such that if it is dissuasive it is a sap and is conjunctive. sent6: the riveter does sap and it is conjunctive if it is dissuasive. sent7: the riveter is not a garbageman and headquarters Auckland if it is a dictum. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is dissuasive hold it is conjunctive. sent9: something is not a punctuation and is a irreligionist if it is stomatous. sent10: there exists something such that if it is extracellular it does not ding adsorbent and does ding canto. sent11: the riveter is a Day that does ding Set if it does sap. sent12: there exists something such that if it dings groschen that it does not headquarter intermediate and it does ding adsorbent hold. sent13: if the scaphopod is dissuasive it does chime and it is short-order. sent14: the riveter is not a sap but conjunctive if it is dissuasive. sent15: the riveter does not ding groschen but it is a Washingtonian if that it does not outgeneral Casmerodius is incorrect. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a Liston then it does not ding plausibility and it is a cityscape.
sent14 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it is stomatous then it is not a punctuation and it is a irreligionist.
sent9 -> int1: if the fact that the viewers is not non-stomatous hold it is not a punctuation and it is a kind of a irreligionist.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is dissuasive then it is not a kind of a sap and it is conjunctive is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gallfly is a worrier then it is not dissuasive and it incurvates. sent2: there is something such that if it is dissuasive then the fact that it is not a sap is not false. sent3: the fact that the riveter is conjunctive if the riveter is dissuasive is not false. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a treat it is a possible. sent5: there exists something such that if it is dissuasive it is a sap and is conjunctive. sent6: the riveter does sap and it is conjunctive if it is dissuasive. sent7: the riveter is not a garbageman and headquarters Auckland if it is a dictum. sent8: there exists something such that if that it is dissuasive hold it is conjunctive. sent9: something is not a punctuation and is a irreligionist if it is stomatous. sent10: there exists something such that if it is extracellular it does not ding adsorbent and does ding canto. sent11: the riveter is a Day that does ding Set if it does sap. sent12: there exists something such that if it dings groschen that it does not headquarter intermediate and it does ding adsorbent hold. sent13: if the scaphopod is dissuasive it does chime and it is short-order. sent14: the riveter is not a sap but conjunctive if it is dissuasive. sent15: the riveter does not ding groschen but it is a Washingtonian if that it does not outgeneral Casmerodius is incorrect. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a Liston then it does not ding plausibility and it is a cityscape. ; $proof$ = 
sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__