that there is something such that if it is not undomestic that it is not cacodemonic and is dysgenics does not hold is not right.
sent1: if the gabapentin is not undomestic then the fact that it is cacodemonic and it is dysgenics does not hold. sent2: if the gabapentin is not a vermiculation then it is not a Mackenzie and it is cacodemonic. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not stampede SCPO then that it does not shriek and is a kind of a blastula is wrong. sent4: the fact that something is not cacodemonic but it is dysgenics is wrong if it is domestic. sent5: if something is not undomestic then the fact that it is cacodemonic and it is dysgenics is not true. sent6: that the cygnet is not a kind of a snowboarder and does stampede inhibition does not hold if it does not enact luxuriance. sent7: there is something such that if it is undomestic then that it is not cacodemonic and is dysgenics is not true. sent8: if the gabapentin is undomestic the fact that it is both not cacodemonic and not non-dysgenics is false. sent9: if something is not a Juneau then the fact that it does not eat and it is obligatory is not true. sent10: something that is not undomestic is not cacodemonic but dysgenics. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not demise gabapentin hold the fact that it is a plasterboard and does stampede lots is wrong. sent12: the gabapentin is a kind of non-cacodemonic thing that is dysgenics if it is not undomestic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not undomestic it is not cacodemonic and it is dysgenics. sent14: that something is not cacodemonic but it is dysgenics is not correct if it is undomestic.
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the gabapentin is not cacodemonic but dysgenics does not hold if it is not undomestic.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not undomestic that it is not cacodemonic and is dysgenics does not hold is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the gabapentin is not undomestic then the fact that it is cacodemonic and it is dysgenics does not hold. sent2: if the gabapentin is not a vermiculation then it is not a Mackenzie and it is cacodemonic. sent3: there exists something such that if it does not stampede SCPO then that it does not shriek and is a kind of a blastula is wrong. sent4: the fact that something is not cacodemonic but it is dysgenics is wrong if it is domestic. sent5: if something is not undomestic then the fact that it is cacodemonic and it is dysgenics is not true. sent6: that the cygnet is not a kind of a snowboarder and does stampede inhibition does not hold if it does not enact luxuriance. sent7: there is something such that if it is undomestic then that it is not cacodemonic and is dysgenics is not true. sent8: if the gabapentin is undomestic the fact that it is both not cacodemonic and not non-dysgenics is false. sent9: if something is not a Juneau then the fact that it does not eat and it is obligatory is not true. sent10: something that is not undomestic is not cacodemonic but dysgenics. sent11: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not demise gabapentin hold the fact that it is a plasterboard and does stampede lots is wrong. sent12: the gabapentin is a kind of non-cacodemonic thing that is dysgenics if it is not undomestic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not undomestic it is not cacodemonic and it is dysgenics. sent14: that something is not cacodemonic but it is dysgenics is not correct if it is undomestic. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the gabapentin is not cacodemonic but dysgenics does not hold if it is not undomestic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__