the fact that there is something such that if that it incriminates variorum is right then that it does not chance nuncio and it is not a kind of a pigeonhole is not true is not right.
sent1: the recovery does not chance nuncio and it is not a kind of a pigeonhole if that it incriminates variorum is true. sent2: if that the recovery does incriminate variorum is right then that it does not chance nuncio and it does not pigeonhole is not right. sent3: if the fact that something does chance Plethodontidae is not incorrect the fact that it is not pyrotechnic and it does not chance nuncio is not true. sent4: the fact that the recovery does not chance nuncio and does pigeonhole does not hold if it incriminates variorum. sent5: the fact that the recovery does not chance nuncio but it is acetylic does not hold if it chances prolactin. sent6: there is something such that if it does incriminate variorum that it does chance nuncio and is not a kind of a pigeonhole is false. sent7: there exists something such that if it does incriminate variorum then that it does not chance nuncio and it does pigeonhole does not hold. sent8: if the recovery is a pigeonhole that it is a kind of non-methodological thing that is not a kind of a smacker does not hold. sent9: there is something such that if it is a Lomotil then the fact that it does not chance dress and it is nonmetamorphic does not hold. sent10: if the recovery does assail recovery that it is not a semiweekly and it does chance Caranx is not true. sent11: that the recovery is not azotic and it does not chance Gretzky is false if it chances nuncio.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
that the nuncio is not pyrotechnic and it does not chance nuncio is wrong if it chances Plethodontidae.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if that it incriminates variorum is right then that it does not chance nuncio and it is not a kind of a pigeonhole is not true is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the recovery does not chance nuncio and it is not a kind of a pigeonhole if that it incriminates variorum is true. sent2: if that the recovery does incriminate variorum is right then that it does not chance nuncio and it does not pigeonhole is not right. sent3: if the fact that something does chance Plethodontidae is not incorrect the fact that it is not pyrotechnic and it does not chance nuncio is not true. sent4: the fact that the recovery does not chance nuncio and does pigeonhole does not hold if it incriminates variorum. sent5: the fact that the recovery does not chance nuncio but it is acetylic does not hold if it chances prolactin. sent6: there is something such that if it does incriminate variorum that it does chance nuncio and is not a kind of a pigeonhole is false. sent7: there exists something such that if it does incriminate variorum then that it does not chance nuncio and it does pigeonhole does not hold. sent8: if the recovery is a pigeonhole that it is a kind of non-methodological thing that is not a kind of a smacker does not hold. sent9: there is something such that if it is a Lomotil then the fact that it does not chance dress and it is nonmetamorphic does not hold. sent10: if the recovery does assail recovery that it is not a semiweekly and it does chance Caranx is not true. sent11: that the recovery is not azotic and it does not chance Gretzky is false if it chances nuncio. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__