that there is something such that if it is pentavalent and it is non-cruciferous it is soteriological is not true.
sent1: if the spotlight is pentavalent but it is not cruciferous that it is soteriological is not wrong. sent2: there exists something such that if it is pentavalent and it is cruciferous then it is soteriological. sent3: the spotlight is retinal if it is explicit and it segregates nidus. sent4: a non-putrid Komi is Mycenaean. sent5: that the spotlight is not soteriological is not right if it is both pentavalent and cruciferous. sent6: the hermit is bottomless if it does embower parachutist and is mercantile. sent7: if something is a kind of a extravasation that is not intuitionist then it is a redeye.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
if the spotlight is both a extravasation and not intuitionist then it is a redeye.
sent7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is pentavalent and it is non-cruciferous it is soteriological is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the spotlight is pentavalent but it is not cruciferous that it is soteriological is not wrong. sent2: there exists something such that if it is pentavalent and it is cruciferous then it is soteriological. sent3: the spotlight is retinal if it is explicit and it segregates nidus. sent4: a non-putrid Komi is Mycenaean. sent5: that the spotlight is not soteriological is not right if it is both pentavalent and cruciferous. sent6: the hermit is bottomless if it does embower parachutist and is mercantile. sent7: if something is a kind of a extravasation that is not intuitionist then it is a redeye. ; $proof$ = 
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__