the no-show is a kind of a Parkinsonism.
sent1: that the no-show does dump reward is incorrect if that the guacamole does dump reward is right. sent2: if something is not a Galatians it is limbless and refreshes relish. sent3: that something is not a Parkinsonism and it does not dump reward is not correct if it is limbless. sent4: the belching either does dump reward or is limbless or both. sent5: if there is something such that it dumps reward and/or it is limbless the no-show is not a Parkinsonism. sent6: something is not a Parkinsonism and is not limbless if it refreshes relish.
sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that that it dumps reward or is limbless or both hold.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the no-show is a kind of a Parkinsonism.
sent3 -> int2: if the guacamole is limbless then that it is not a Parkinsonism and does not dump reward is wrong.; sent2 -> int3: if the guacamole is not a Galatians then it is limbless and refreshes relish.;
$hypothesis$ = the no-show is a kind of a Parkinsonism. ; $context$ = sent1: that the no-show does dump reward is incorrect if that the guacamole does dump reward is right. sent2: if something is not a Galatians it is limbless and refreshes relish. sent3: that something is not a Parkinsonism and it does not dump reward is not correct if it is limbless. sent4: the belching either does dump reward or is limbless or both. sent5: if there is something such that it dumps reward and/or it is limbless the no-show is not a Parkinsonism. sent6: something is not a Parkinsonism and is not limbless if it refreshes relish. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: there exists something such that that it dumps reward or is limbless or both hold.; int1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__