the fact that there exists something such that if that it is not temperamental and not a labial is not correct then it is a sago is not right.
sent1: if that something does not identify flyspeck and is not dermatologic does not hold it is temperamental. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a limnologist and it is not a dicloxacillin the fact that it does rabbet jest is correct. sent3: if the plum-yew is not non-labial then it is a sago. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not temperamental and it is a labial is not right the fact that it is a sago is not incorrect. sent5: the plum-yew is a kind of a sago if the fact that it is not temperamental and it is not a labial is wrong.
sent5 -> hypothesis;
if the fact that the canal does not identify flyspeck and is not dermatologic is not right then it is temperamental.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if that it is not temperamental and not a labial is not correct then it is a sago is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not identify flyspeck and is not dermatologic does not hold it is temperamental. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a limnologist and it is not a dicloxacillin the fact that it does rabbet jest is correct. sent3: if the plum-yew is not non-labial then it is a sago. sent4: there is something such that if the fact that it is not temperamental and it is a labial is not right the fact that it is a sago is not incorrect. sent5: the plum-yew is a kind of a sago if the fact that it is not temperamental and it is not a labial is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__