the fact that the epergne is mortal is correct.
sent1: if something is constructive it is mortal. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a romanticism and it does not propose thanatophobia is not true the Xhosa accredits flickering. sent3: something does accredit flickering if it is constructive. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it proposes thanatophobia then the fascista is not mortal is not wrong. sent5: if something is not mortal then the fact that it is not constructive and it is not a kind of a romanticism is incorrect. sent6: if that something jets and is aleuronic is not true it does not accredit flickering. sent7: if the toucher is mortal and accredits flickering then the epergne is not mortal. sent8: that something is a kind of a jet that is aleuronic is not correct if that it is not undramatic is not incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a romanticism and it does not propose thanatophobia is not correct. sent10: that the fascista is constructive is not false if the fact that it is a kind of non-constructive thing that is not a romanticism does not hold.
sent8 -> int1: if the fact that the Xhosa is not undramatic hold then that it is a jet and aleuronic is wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Xhosa is not undramatic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the Xhosa does jet and it is aleuronic is wrong.; sent6 -> int3: if the fact that the Xhosa is both a jet and aleuronic is wrong then it does not accredit flickering.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the Xhosa does not accredit flickering.; sent9 & sent2 -> int5: the Xhosa does accredit flickering.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Xhosa is undramatic.; sent1 -> int8: the epergne is mortal if it is constructive.;
the fascista is undramatic.
sent3 -> int9: if the fascista is constructive it does accredit flickering.; sent5 -> int10: if the fascista is not mortal that it is not constructive and is not a romanticism does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the epergne is mortal is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is constructive it is mortal. sent2: if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a romanticism and it does not propose thanatophobia is not true the Xhosa accredits flickering. sent3: something does accredit flickering if it is constructive. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it proposes thanatophobia then the fascista is not mortal is not wrong. sent5: if something is not mortal then the fact that it is not constructive and it is not a kind of a romanticism is incorrect. sent6: if that something jets and is aleuronic is not true it does not accredit flickering. sent7: if the toucher is mortal and accredits flickering then the epergne is not mortal. sent8: that something is a kind of a jet that is aleuronic is not correct if that it is not undramatic is not incorrect. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a kind of a romanticism and it does not propose thanatophobia is not correct. sent10: that the fascista is constructive is not false if the fact that it is a kind of non-constructive thing that is not a romanticism does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent8 -> int1: if the fact that the Xhosa is not undramatic hold then that it is a jet and aleuronic is wrong.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Xhosa is not undramatic.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the fact that the Xhosa does jet and it is aleuronic is wrong.; sent6 -> int3: if the fact that the Xhosa is both a jet and aleuronic is wrong then it does not accredit flickering.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the Xhosa does not accredit flickering.; sent9 & sent2 -> int5: the Xhosa does accredit flickering.; int4 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the Xhosa is undramatic.; sent1 -> int8: the epergne is mortal if it is constructive.; __UNKNOWN__