the fact that there is something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive it is not a tuber and is a sipper is not right.
sent1: that something does not shatter shogun and is a Hampton is not wrong if it does not weld Comstockery. sent2: if the obsessive-compulsive does not weld obsessive-compulsive then that it is a tuber and is a sipper hold. sent3: if the obsessive-compulsive does weld obsessive-compulsive then it is both not a tuber and a sipper. sent4: the obsessive-compulsive is a sipper if that it does not weld obsessive-compulsive is correct. sent5: there is something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive then it is a sipper. sent6: there is something such that if it is seedless then it is not a reticule and is a certificate. sent7: the obsessive-compulsive is not a tuber but it is a sipper if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive. sent8: there is something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive it is a tuber and is a sipper. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive the fact that it is not a kind of a tuber is right.
sent7 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that if it does not weld Comstockery it does not shatter shogun and it is a Hampton.
sent1 -> int1: the decline does not shatter shogun but it is a kind of a Hampton if it does not weld Comstockery.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive it is not a tuber and is a sipper is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does not shatter shogun and is a Hampton is not wrong if it does not weld Comstockery. sent2: if the obsessive-compulsive does not weld obsessive-compulsive then that it is a tuber and is a sipper hold. sent3: if the obsessive-compulsive does weld obsessive-compulsive then it is both not a tuber and a sipper. sent4: the obsessive-compulsive is a sipper if that it does not weld obsessive-compulsive is correct. sent5: there is something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive then it is a sipper. sent6: there is something such that if it is seedless then it is not a reticule and is a certificate. sent7: the obsessive-compulsive is not a tuber but it is a sipper if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive. sent8: there is something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive it is a tuber and is a sipper. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not weld obsessive-compulsive the fact that it is not a kind of a tuber is right. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__