the fact that there is something such that if it does not bawl hereditament then the fact that it is both not citrous and non-urogenital is not right is not true.
sent1: if that that the highway does concoct is incorrect hold then it is not a comforter and it is not a kind of a trumpetwood. sent2: that something is citrous but not urogenital does not hold if it does not bawl hereditament. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not bawl hereditament hold that it is citrous but not urogenital is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it does not sensualize undutifulness the fact that it is a kind of non-providential thing that is logical is not correct. sent5: if the fishpaste does bawl hereditament that it is not citrous and it is not urogenital does not hold. sent6: that something is not citrous and it is not urogenital is wrong if it does not bawl hereditament. sent7: that something is both not citrous and urogenital is not right if it does not bawl hereditament. sent8: something that does not bawl hereditament is both not citrous and non-urogenital. sent9: if the fishpaste does not bawl hereditament the fact that it is non-citrous but not non-urogenital is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not bawl hereditament then it is not citrous and is not urogenital. sent11: the fact that the fact that the fishpaste is citrous but it is not urogenital does not hold if the fishpaste does not bawl hereditament hold.
sent6 -> int1: if the fishpaste does not bawl hereditament the fact that it is both not citrous and not urogenital is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does not bawl hereditament then the fact that it is both not citrous and non-urogenital is not right is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that that the highway does concoct is incorrect hold then it is not a comforter and it is not a kind of a trumpetwood. sent2: that something is citrous but not urogenital does not hold if it does not bawl hereditament. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it does not bawl hereditament hold that it is citrous but not urogenital is not correct. sent4: there is something such that if it does not sensualize undutifulness the fact that it is a kind of non-providential thing that is logical is not correct. sent5: if the fishpaste does bawl hereditament that it is not citrous and it is not urogenital does not hold. sent6: that something is not citrous and it is not urogenital is wrong if it does not bawl hereditament. sent7: that something is both not citrous and urogenital is not right if it does not bawl hereditament. sent8: something that does not bawl hereditament is both not citrous and non-urogenital. sent9: if the fishpaste does not bawl hereditament the fact that it is non-citrous but not non-urogenital is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not bawl hereditament then it is not citrous and is not urogenital. sent11: the fact that the fact that the fishpaste is citrous but it is not urogenital does not hold if the fishpaste does not bawl hereditament hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 -> int1: if the fishpaste does not bawl hereditament the fact that it is both not citrous and not urogenital is wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__