the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is an enlarger and it is not hairless is incorrect then it does not extend roasting is wrong.
sent1: the fact that if the inhaler is hairless then that the inhaler does not extend roasting is correct is right. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not salamandriform the fact that it is not a specific is not false. sent3: if that the inhaler is a kind of an enlarger and is not hairless is not true then that it does not extend roasting is not false. sent4: there exists something such that if that it does underwrite ambulation and is not a anteroom is not true it is unambitious. sent5: if the inhaler is an enlarger but it is not hairless it does not extend roasting.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is an enlarger and it is not hairless is incorrect then it does not extend roasting is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the inhaler is hairless then that the inhaler does not extend roasting is correct is right. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not salamandriform the fact that it is not a specific is not false. sent3: if that the inhaler is a kind of an enlarger and is not hairless is not true then that it does not extend roasting is not false. sent4: there exists something such that if that it does underwrite ambulation and is not a anteroom is not true it is unambitious. sent5: if the inhaler is an enlarger but it is not hairless it does not extend roasting. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__