that there exists something such that if it is non-photoemissive and non-ectopic it is a Apia is incorrect.
sent1: there is something such that if it perorates and it is not clockwise then it does ask Scandinavian. sent2: if the rawhide is not an intensification and does not casket astronavigation then it is a Assur. sent3: the vinegar asks palace if it is both a drinking and not ectopic. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a vestment and it is not modern it is insentient. sent5: something does ask lightness if it is non-bisectional and it does not multiply Zeitgeist. sent6: there is something such that if it is both photoemissive and not ectopic then it is a Apia. sent7: if the vinegar is both not a Antiguan and not a Alexandrian then it is photoemissive. sent8: there exists something such that if it is minimal but not a milliliter then it is uninfluential. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a topper and does not leach Safar then it is collagenous. sent10: if the vinegar is a kind of photoemissive thing that is not ectopic it is a Apia. sent11: if something is not photoemissive and is not a Anadenanthera then it is urban. sent12: if the vinegar is not photoemissive but it is ectopic it is a Apia. sent13: there is something such that if it is not photoemissive and it is ectopic then it is a Apia. sent14: if the preschooler does not casket Hunt and it does not multiply austerity it is photoemissive. sent15: if the vinegar is a kind of a Apia but it is not a bride then that it does multiply ruga is not wrong. sent16: if the vinegar is both not photoemissive and non-ectopic then it is a Apia. sent17: that the vinegar is insentient hold if it is a marbled and it is not a kind of a Apia. sent18: the fact that if the vinegar is not off-street and it does not ask franklin then the vinegar is photoemissive is not incorrect.
sent16 -> hypothesis;
the fact that the tanager is urban hold if it is not photoemissive and is not a Anadenanthera.
sent11 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is non-photoemissive and non-ectopic it is a Apia is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it perorates and it is not clockwise then it does ask Scandinavian. sent2: if the rawhide is not an intensification and does not casket astronavigation then it is a Assur. sent3: the vinegar asks palace if it is both a drinking and not ectopic. sent4: there is something such that if it is not a vestment and it is not modern it is insentient. sent5: something does ask lightness if it is non-bisectional and it does not multiply Zeitgeist. sent6: there is something such that if it is both photoemissive and not ectopic then it is a Apia. sent7: if the vinegar is both not a Antiguan and not a Alexandrian then it is photoemissive. sent8: there exists something such that if it is minimal but not a milliliter then it is uninfluential. sent9: there is something such that if it is not a topper and does not leach Safar then it is collagenous. sent10: if the vinegar is a kind of photoemissive thing that is not ectopic it is a Apia. sent11: if something is not photoemissive and is not a Anadenanthera then it is urban. sent12: if the vinegar is not photoemissive but it is ectopic it is a Apia. sent13: there is something such that if it is not photoemissive and it is ectopic then it is a Apia. sent14: if the preschooler does not casket Hunt and it does not multiply austerity it is photoemissive. sent15: if the vinegar is a kind of a Apia but it is not a bride then that it does multiply ruga is not wrong. sent16: if the vinegar is both not photoemissive and non-ectopic then it is a Apia. sent17: that the vinegar is insentient hold if it is a marbled and it is not a kind of a Apia. sent18: the fact that if the vinegar is not off-street and it does not ask franklin then the vinegar is photoemissive is not incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__