the fact that there exists something such that if it is not mutational then that it is not a Rostov or is not pyrotechnic or both is wrong is not correct.
sent1: there is something such that if it is not lacrimatory it is a kind of a reactionary. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a laterality it does not resize or does not wring or both. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not terminological then the fact that it does not humanize and/or it is not a Vidua is wrong. sent4: if the gargoyle is not embolic the fact that it either is not exegetic or is pyrotechnic or both is not true. sent5: there is something such that if it is not Erasmian then it is a fin. sent6: if that the gargoyle is mutational does not hold the fact that it is either not a Rostov or not pyrotechnic or both is incorrect. sent7: if something is not a reactionism the fact that it either is not a bagman or does not reflectorize nostril or both is false. sent8: if the gargoyle is not mutational it is a kind of a Rostov. sent9: if the eatage is not a bagman then it is a fin. sent10: the gargoyle is not a Rostov or it is not pyrotechnic or both if it is not mutational. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not reflectorize Micronesia it does ascertain edge. sent12: there is something such that if it is not mutational the fact that it is a kind of a Rostov and/or it is not pyrotechnic does not hold. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not mutational then the fact that it is not a Rostov or it is pyrotechnic or both is not right. sent14: if something is not a kind of a Clinidae the fact that it is not blastomeric and/or it does not reflectorize nostril is not correct. sent15: if something is non-commensal the fact that that it is not rotatory or it does not ascertain edge or both is not incorrect does not hold.
sent6 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that if it is not a reactionism the fact that it is not a kind of a bagman and/or it does not reflectorize nostril is incorrect.
sent7 -> int1: the fact that either the alkaloid is not a bagman or it does not reflectorize nostril or both is not correct if it is not a kind of a reactionism.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not mutational then that it is not a Rostov or is not pyrotechnic or both is wrong is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not lacrimatory it is a kind of a reactionary. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a laterality it does not resize or does not wring or both. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not terminological then the fact that it does not humanize and/or it is not a Vidua is wrong. sent4: if the gargoyle is not embolic the fact that it either is not exegetic or is pyrotechnic or both is not true. sent5: there is something such that if it is not Erasmian then it is a fin. sent6: if that the gargoyle is mutational does not hold the fact that it is either not a Rostov or not pyrotechnic or both is incorrect. sent7: if something is not a reactionism the fact that it either is not a bagman or does not reflectorize nostril or both is false. sent8: if the gargoyle is not mutational it is a kind of a Rostov. sent9: if the eatage is not a bagman then it is a fin. sent10: the gargoyle is not a Rostov or it is not pyrotechnic or both if it is not mutational. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not reflectorize Micronesia it does ascertain edge. sent12: there is something such that if it is not mutational the fact that it is a kind of a Rostov and/or it is not pyrotechnic does not hold. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not mutational then the fact that it is not a Rostov or it is pyrotechnic or both is not right. sent14: if something is not a kind of a Clinidae the fact that it is not blastomeric and/or it does not reflectorize nostril is not correct. sent15: if something is non-commensal the fact that that it is not rotatory or it does not ascertain edge or both is not incorrect does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__