that there exists something such that if it does not theologize then that it is not a fibrosity but a homebuilder does not hold is wrong.
sent1: if the rhinion does not theologize it is not a fibrosity and it is a homebuilder. sent2: that something is not a kind of a semiautomatic but it is a homebuilder is not true if it is not a elastance. sent3: the servitor is not a kind of a homebuilder and lurches mole if that it does not lurch Nagasaki is right. sent4: if the rhinion does not program nimbleness then that that it does not theologize and it is defiant hold does not hold. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not quartzose that it does cart and it lurches mole is not right. sent6: there is something such that if it is thermionic that it is not a Fuego and is a Portuguese is wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it does nag then the fact that it is not epiphyseal and it does program nimbleness is wrong. sent8: that there is something such that if it theologizes the fact that it is not a fibrosity but a homebuilder does not hold hold. sent9: the fact that the rhinion is not a fibrosity but it is a homebuilder does not hold if it does theologize. sent10: there is something such that if it does not theologize it is not a fibrosity and it is a homebuilder. sent11: that the rhinion is a kind of non-thermionic a fibrosity is not true if it is not arsenious. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not Luxembourgian then that it is noncausative and it is a kind of a consideration is not true. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not conciliatory then that it is not a dramatization and is integumentary hold. sent14: if something does not theologize that it is not sinistral and does lurch canoeist does not hold. sent15: if the satinet is categoric the fact that it does not theologize and is pyroelectric is not right. sent16: if something is not a fibrosity then the fact that it does not lurch servitor and it is a kind of a rear is false. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not theologize then that it is a fibrosity and it is a homebuilder is incorrect. sent18: there exists something such that if it does not cope kopek then that it is not quartzose and it is bacteriological does not hold. sent19: if the juice does not corkscrew the fact that it does not theologize and it is a kind of a elastance does not hold. sent20: if the rhinion does not theologize then that it is not a kind of a fibrosity and it is a kind of a homebuilder is incorrect. sent21: if the rhinion does not theologize then the fact that it is a fibrosity and a homebuilder does not hold.
sent20 -> hypothesis;
that the conjugate does not lurch servitor and does rear is not true if it is not a fibrosity.
sent16 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it does not theologize then that it is not a fibrosity but a homebuilder does not hold is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rhinion does not theologize it is not a fibrosity and it is a homebuilder. sent2: that something is not a kind of a semiautomatic but it is a homebuilder is not true if it is not a elastance. sent3: the servitor is not a kind of a homebuilder and lurches mole if that it does not lurch Nagasaki is right. sent4: if the rhinion does not program nimbleness then that that it does not theologize and it is defiant hold does not hold. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not quartzose that it does cart and it lurches mole is not right. sent6: there is something such that if it is thermionic that it is not a Fuego and is a Portuguese is wrong. sent7: there is something such that if it does nag then the fact that it is not epiphyseal and it does program nimbleness is wrong. sent8: that there is something such that if it theologizes the fact that it is not a fibrosity but a homebuilder does not hold hold. sent9: the fact that the rhinion is not a fibrosity but it is a homebuilder does not hold if it does theologize. sent10: there is something such that if it does not theologize it is not a fibrosity and it is a homebuilder. sent11: that the rhinion is a kind of non-thermionic a fibrosity is not true if it is not arsenious. sent12: there exists something such that if it is not Luxembourgian then that it is noncausative and it is a kind of a consideration is not true. sent13: there exists something such that if it is not conciliatory then that it is not a dramatization and is integumentary hold. sent14: if something does not theologize that it is not sinistral and does lurch canoeist does not hold. sent15: if the satinet is categoric the fact that it does not theologize and is pyroelectric is not right. sent16: if something is not a fibrosity then the fact that it does not lurch servitor and it is a kind of a rear is false. sent17: there exists something such that if it does not theologize then that it is a fibrosity and it is a homebuilder is incorrect. sent18: there exists something such that if it does not cope kopek then that it is not quartzose and it is bacteriological does not hold. sent19: if the juice does not corkscrew the fact that it does not theologize and it is a kind of a elastance does not hold. sent20: if the rhinion does not theologize then that it is not a kind of a fibrosity and it is a kind of a homebuilder is incorrect. sent21: if the rhinion does not theologize then the fact that it is a fibrosity and a homebuilder does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent20 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__