that there exists something such that if it is hydrocephalic then that it expenses Malawian and it is not autolytic is false is wrong.
sent1: there is something such that if it does reopen Isherwood then it is a Avestan and it does not concern paralytic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a stay-at-home the fact that it concerns sheepherder and it concerns paralytic is not true. sent3: that something is Abkhaz thing that does not expense fig does not hold if it is unprophetic. sent4: there is something such that if it is hydrocephalic the fact that it expenses Malawian and is autolytic is not true. sent5: that the stretch does expense expensiveness and is not afebrile is not right if that it is hydrocephalic is not false. sent6: there is something such that if it does shampoo custodian then the fact that it expenses means and is centesimal is wrong. sent7: the fact that if the fig is hydrocephalic then that the fig expenses Malawian and is autolytic does not hold is correct. sent8: if the fig is hydrocephalic the fact that it does expense Malawian and is not autolytic does not hold. sent9: the fig expenses Malawian and is not autolytic if it is hydrocephalic.
sent8 -> hypothesis;
that there is something such that if it is unprophetic that it is a Abkhaz and does not expense fig does not hold is not incorrect.
sent3 -> int1: if the custodian is unprophetic then that it is a kind of a Abkhaz and it does not expense fig is false.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is hydrocephalic then that it expenses Malawian and it is not autolytic is false is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does reopen Isherwood then it is a Avestan and it does not concern paralytic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a stay-at-home the fact that it concerns sheepherder and it concerns paralytic is not true. sent3: that something is Abkhaz thing that does not expense fig does not hold if it is unprophetic. sent4: there is something such that if it is hydrocephalic the fact that it expenses Malawian and is autolytic is not true. sent5: that the stretch does expense expensiveness and is not afebrile is not right if that it is hydrocephalic is not false. sent6: there is something such that if it does shampoo custodian then the fact that it expenses means and is centesimal is wrong. sent7: the fact that if the fig is hydrocephalic then that the fig expenses Malawian and is autolytic does not hold is correct. sent8: if the fig is hydrocephalic the fact that it does expense Malawian and is not autolytic does not hold. sent9: the fig expenses Malawian and is not autolytic if it is hydrocephalic. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__