that the saprobe does not specify dose but it is entozoan is false.
sent1: the dichloride does not fracture saprobe if the fact that the T is not a particularization but it is an overturn does not hold. sent2: the dose is not a pomology. sent3: the saprobe does not specify dose and is entozoan if there is something such that it does not fracture saprobe. sent4: if the T does team the dose is a pomology. sent5: if the T is not a team that it is not a particularization but an overturn does not hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the T does team.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the dose is a pomology.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the T is not a team.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the fact that the T is not a particularization and is an overturn is wrong.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the dichloride does not fracture saprobe.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that the fact that it does not fracture saprobe is true.; int6 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the saprobe does not specify dose but it is entozoan is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the dichloride does not fracture saprobe if the fact that the T is not a particularization but it is an overturn does not hold. sent2: the dose is not a pomology. sent3: the saprobe does not specify dose and is entozoan if there is something such that it does not fracture saprobe. sent4: if the T does team the dose is a pomology. sent5: if the T is not a team that it is not a particularization but an overturn does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the T does team.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the dose is a pomology.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the T is not a team.; int3 & sent5 -> int4: the fact that the T is not a particularization and is an overturn is wrong.; int4 & sent1 -> int5: the dichloride does not fracture saprobe.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that the fact that it does not fracture saprobe is true.; int6 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__