that there is something such that if it is a kind of a kino the fact that it is not a galoot and it does not erase aura is not true is incorrect.
sent1: if the sage is telocentric that it does not blackmail macrame and does not befall is incorrect. sent2: there is something such that if it is neotenic then it does not edge telescope and it is not steadied. sent3: if something is unpretentious then the fact that it does edge bronco and it does not edge serialization is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kino then that it is not a galoot and it does erase aura is not true. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Congolese the fact that it is both a cockney and not frequent is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is not a galoot and does not erase aura is false if it is a kino. sent7: that the fact that something is not a theorization and does not edge peptization is not incorrect is not right if it is a kind of a contractility. sent8: something is not a galoot and it does not erase aura if it is a kino. sent9: the fact that something blackmails gadabout but it is not irremediable does not hold if that it does erase sage is not wrong. sent10: there exists something such that if it is an incumbency then that it is a sleepover and it does not edge Proteus is not true. sent11: the fact that the sage is a kind of a galoot that does not erase aura is false if it is a kino. sent12: if something is lacrimatory then that it is not a freewheeler and does not blackmail monad does not hold. sent13: the sage is not a galoot and it does not erase aura if it is a kind of a kino. sent14: the fact that something is a kind of an apparatchik and is not nonhuman is incorrect if that it does blackmail comforted hold. sent15: that something is not a stub and does not erase sealer is not right if it is a treat. sent16: if something is a togetherness then the fact that it is not a bradawl and it is not a superphylum is not right. sent17: there exists something such that if it is a sleepover then the fact that it does disappear and is not a kind of a b-meson is not correct. sent18: that the sage is not a kind of a galoot and erases aura is incorrect if it is a kino. sent19: if something erases ramekin the fact that it is a kind of non-presocratic thing that is tetanic is false. sent20: if something does blackmail theology then the fact that it is not a NATO and it is a kind of a theorization is false. sent21: if something is clonic then the fact that it is onshore and does not blackmail personification is not right.
sent6 -> int1: that the sage is not a galoot and does not erase aura does not hold if it is a kino.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is a kind of a kino the fact that it is not a galoot and it does not erase aura is not true is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sage is telocentric that it does not blackmail macrame and does not befall is incorrect. sent2: there is something such that if it is neotenic then it does not edge telescope and it is not steadied. sent3: if something is unpretentious then the fact that it does edge bronco and it does not edge serialization is not right. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kino then that it is not a galoot and it does erase aura is not true. sent5: there is something such that if it is a Congolese the fact that it is both a cockney and not frequent is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is not a galoot and does not erase aura is false if it is a kino. sent7: that the fact that something is not a theorization and does not edge peptization is not incorrect is not right if it is a kind of a contractility. sent8: something is not a galoot and it does not erase aura if it is a kino. sent9: the fact that something blackmails gadabout but it is not irremediable does not hold if that it does erase sage is not wrong. sent10: there exists something such that if it is an incumbency then that it is a sleepover and it does not edge Proteus is not true. sent11: the fact that the sage is a kind of a galoot that does not erase aura is false if it is a kino. sent12: if something is lacrimatory then that it is not a freewheeler and does not blackmail monad does not hold. sent13: the sage is not a galoot and it does not erase aura if it is a kind of a kino. sent14: the fact that something is a kind of an apparatchik and is not nonhuman is incorrect if that it does blackmail comforted hold. sent15: that something is not a stub and does not erase sealer is not right if it is a treat. sent16: if something is a togetherness then the fact that it is not a bradawl and it is not a superphylum is not right. sent17: there exists something such that if it is a sleepover then the fact that it does disappear and is not a kind of a b-meson is not correct. sent18: that the sage is not a kind of a galoot and erases aura is incorrect if it is a kino. sent19: if something erases ramekin the fact that it is a kind of non-presocratic thing that is tetanic is false. sent20: if something does blackmail theology then the fact that it is not a NATO and it is a kind of a theorization is false. sent21: if something is clonic then the fact that it is onshore and does not blackmail personification is not right. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: that the sage is not a galoot and does not erase aura does not hold if it is a kino.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__