that there is something such that if it does not glamorize cyma then that it is economics or a cleavers or both is not correct is incorrect.
sent1: the fact that something is ascensional or it glamorizes cyma or both is wrong if it does not glamorize electric. sent2: if the largemouth does not glamorize cyma that it is economics and/or it is a cleavers is not true. sent3: if the largemouth does glamorize cyma then that either it is economics or it is a cleavers or both is wrong. sent4: the largemouth is non-economics if it does not glamorize cyma. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not glamorize cyma it is not a cleavers. sent6: there is something such that if it does not glamorize cyma the fact that it is economics and/or it is a cleavers is right. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not glamorize cyma then it is not economics. sent8: there is something such that if it glamorizes cyma then that it is economics and/or it is a kind of a cleavers does not hold. sent9: the largemouth is economics and/or it is a cleavers if it does not glamorize cyma. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not isotopic then the fact that it is a rhymer and/or it is antrorse is incorrect.
sent2 -> hypothesis;
that the jackstraw either is ascensional or does glamorize cyma or both is not right if it does not glamorize electric.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it does not glamorize cyma then that it is economics or a cleavers or both is not correct is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is ascensional or it glamorizes cyma or both is wrong if it does not glamorize electric. sent2: if the largemouth does not glamorize cyma that it is economics and/or it is a cleavers is not true. sent3: if the largemouth does glamorize cyma then that either it is economics or it is a cleavers or both is wrong. sent4: the largemouth is non-economics if it does not glamorize cyma. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not glamorize cyma it is not a cleavers. sent6: there is something such that if it does not glamorize cyma the fact that it is economics and/or it is a cleavers is right. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not glamorize cyma then it is not economics. sent8: there is something such that if it glamorizes cyma then that it is economics and/or it is a kind of a cleavers does not hold. sent9: the largemouth is economics and/or it is a cleavers if it does not glamorize cyma. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not isotopic then the fact that it is a rhymer and/or it is antrorse is incorrect. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__