the fact that there is something such that if it does flake whitebait then the fact that it is not a financier and not a Cork is not true is not correct.
sent1: the fact that the abettor is not an explosive and not a Cork is not true if that it is a Cupressaceae is right. sent2: if the abettor does flake whitebait that it is not a kind of a financier and it is a kind of a Cork is wrong. sent3: the fact that the abettor is a kind of a financier but it is not a Cork is not correct if it flakes whitebait. sent4: if something is a kind of a Erewhon the fact that it does not overuse trimipramine and it does not tip cliff-brake is not right. sent5: if the abettor flakes whitebait then it is both not a financier and not a Cork. sent6: if the abettor lectures then the fact that it is not a nelson and does not flake whitebait is incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that if it does flake whitebait that it is not a kind of a financier and it is a kind of a Cork does not hold. sent8: if something overuses Styrofoam then the fact that it is not a kind of a confiture and it is not a sob is not right. sent9: if the cliff-brake does flake whitebait then that it does not complete and it is a overbite is wrong. sent10: there is something such that if it does flake whitebait the fact that it is a kind of a financier and it is not a Cork is wrong. sent11: that the abettor is both not a financier and not a Cork is not correct if it does flake whitebait. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Bohemian the fact that it does not overuse inexperience and is exteroceptive is incorrect. sent13: there is something such that if it does flake whitebait then it does not financier and it is not a kind of a Cork. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a Erewhon then the fact that it does not overuse Styrofoam and it does not flake RAF is wrong.
sent11 -> hypothesis;
there exists something such that if that it is a Erewhon is true the fact that it does not overuse trimipramine and does not tip cliff-brake is false.
sent4 -> int1: if the whitebait is a Erewhon that it does not overuse trimipramine and it does not tip cliff-brake is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does flake whitebait then the fact that it is not a financier and not a Cork is not true is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the abettor is not an explosive and not a Cork is not true if that it is a Cupressaceae is right. sent2: if the abettor does flake whitebait that it is not a kind of a financier and it is a kind of a Cork is wrong. sent3: the fact that the abettor is a kind of a financier but it is not a Cork is not correct if it flakes whitebait. sent4: if something is a kind of a Erewhon the fact that it does not overuse trimipramine and it does not tip cliff-brake is not right. sent5: if the abettor flakes whitebait then it is both not a financier and not a Cork. sent6: if the abettor lectures then the fact that it is not a nelson and does not flake whitebait is incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that if it does flake whitebait that it is not a kind of a financier and it is a kind of a Cork does not hold. sent8: if something overuses Styrofoam then the fact that it is not a kind of a confiture and it is not a sob is not right. sent9: if the cliff-brake does flake whitebait then that it does not complete and it is a overbite is wrong. sent10: there is something such that if it does flake whitebait the fact that it is a kind of a financier and it is not a Cork is wrong. sent11: that the abettor is both not a financier and not a Cork is not correct if it does flake whitebait. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Bohemian the fact that it does not overuse inexperience and is exteroceptive is incorrect. sent13: there is something such that if it does flake whitebait then it does not financier and it is not a kind of a Cork. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a Erewhon then the fact that it does not overuse Styrofoam and it does not flake RAF is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__