the fact that there exists something such that if it is a polarity and/or clanks Missoula it is not a submergence is wrong.
sent1: if something is a nursery and/or is canalicular it does not jockey Brama. sent2: there is something such that if it is a polarity then the fact that it is not a kind of a submergence hold. sent3: there exists something such that if either it is a polarity or it clanks Missoula or both then it is a submergence. sent4: there exists something such that if it either consorts resorption or jockeys exogamy or both it does not identify. sent5: something is not Jesuitical if it migrates or is a suitability or both. sent6: if something is a polarity and/or clanks Missoula it is a submergence. sent7: there is something such that if it consorts wine and/or it is a slaughter then it is not Honduran. sent8: if the epicondyle is a polarity and/or it clanks Missoula then it is a kind of a submergence. sent9: the fact that if either something is a polarity or it clanks Missoula or both it is not a kind of a submergence is correct. sent10: something does not clank pinto if it is a ruminant or is a marocain or both. sent11: the epicondyle is not a kind of a submergence if it is a polarity. sent12: if the epicondyle is a scientist or does travesty trick or both that it does not consort Dail is true. sent13: if something is gnostic and/or not non-ethnographic then the fact that it is not hypodermal is not incorrect. sent14: if the paroxetime is a palsied and/or it does dazzle then it is not a kind of a submergence. sent15: if something is a polarity it is not a kind of a submergence. sent16: if something is either a slaughter or congruous or both then it does not depose.
sent9 -> int1: the epicondyle is not a submergence if it is a kind of a polarity and/or it does clank Missoula.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a polarity and/or clanks Missoula it is not a submergence is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a nursery and/or is canalicular it does not jockey Brama. sent2: there is something such that if it is a polarity then the fact that it is not a kind of a submergence hold. sent3: there exists something such that if either it is a polarity or it clanks Missoula or both then it is a submergence. sent4: there exists something such that if it either consorts resorption or jockeys exogamy or both it does not identify. sent5: something is not Jesuitical if it migrates or is a suitability or both. sent6: if something is a polarity and/or clanks Missoula it is a submergence. sent7: there is something such that if it consorts wine and/or it is a slaughter then it is not Honduran. sent8: if the epicondyle is a polarity and/or it clanks Missoula then it is a kind of a submergence. sent9: the fact that if either something is a polarity or it clanks Missoula or both it is not a kind of a submergence is correct. sent10: something does not clank pinto if it is a ruminant or is a marocain or both. sent11: the epicondyle is not a kind of a submergence if it is a polarity. sent12: if the epicondyle is a scientist or does travesty trick or both that it does not consort Dail is true. sent13: if something is gnostic and/or not non-ethnographic then the fact that it is not hypodermal is not incorrect. sent14: if the paroxetime is a palsied and/or it does dazzle then it is not a kind of a submergence. sent15: if something is a polarity it is not a kind of a submergence. sent16: if something is either a slaughter or congruous or both then it does not depose. ; $proof$ = 
sent9 -> int1: the epicondyle is not a submergence if it is a kind of a polarity and/or it does clank Missoula.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__