that there is something such that if it is a rapporteur and it is a kind of a nonconformist it does not clear sashimi is false.
sent1: the shoe-shop is not a quiver if it is a kind of nonconformist a interstice. sent2: there is something such that if it is a kind of a dazzle that clears scorching it is not a mold. sent3: the shoe-shop clears sashimi if that it is a rapporteur that is a kind of a nonconformist is correct. sent4: the shoe-shop is spectroscopic if it is a kind of an active and is a elastance. sent5: if the shoe-shop is a kind of a metronidazole and companies irresponsibility it does clear souse. sent6: if the shoe-shop is a kind of a rapporteur and it is a kind of a nonconformist that it does not clear sashimi is true. sent7: the shoe-shop is a self-depreciation if it clears sashimi and is a Segal. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a rapporteur and is nonconformist it does clear sashimi. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a register and it is a modiolus it is a dobson. sent10: something is not a nonconformist if it is biotypic thing that does company zoril. sent11: the bract is not a rapporteur if it companies Durer and is syllogistic. sent12: the Ethiopian is apicultural if it does clear sashimi and it is a analeptic. sent13: the fact that the shoe-shop is a rapporteur is right if it clears misapplication and is seedy. sent14: if something is heedful and is capacitive that it does not sign mug hold. sent15: the zoril persuades if it clears sashimi and it is caudal.
sent6 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that if it is heedful thing that is capacitive that it does not sign mug hold.
sent14 -> int1: if the filaggrin is heedful and it is capacitive then it does not sign mug.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is a rapporteur and it is a kind of a nonconformist it does not clear sashimi is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the shoe-shop is not a quiver if it is a kind of nonconformist a interstice. sent2: there is something such that if it is a kind of a dazzle that clears scorching it is not a mold. sent3: the shoe-shop clears sashimi if that it is a rapporteur that is a kind of a nonconformist is correct. sent4: the shoe-shop is spectroscopic if it is a kind of an active and is a elastance. sent5: if the shoe-shop is a kind of a metronidazole and companies irresponsibility it does clear souse. sent6: if the shoe-shop is a kind of a rapporteur and it is a kind of a nonconformist that it does not clear sashimi is true. sent7: the shoe-shop is a self-depreciation if it clears sashimi and is a Segal. sent8: there exists something such that if it is a rapporteur and is nonconformist it does clear sashimi. sent9: there exists something such that if it is a register and it is a modiolus it is a dobson. sent10: something is not a nonconformist if it is biotypic thing that does company zoril. sent11: the bract is not a rapporteur if it companies Durer and is syllogistic. sent12: the Ethiopian is apicultural if it does clear sashimi and it is a analeptic. sent13: the fact that the shoe-shop is a rapporteur is right if it clears misapplication and is seedy. sent14: if something is heedful and is capacitive that it does not sign mug hold. sent15: the zoril persuades if it clears sashimi and it is caudal. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__