the rounders does not reflectorize AN.
sent1: the fact that the cartouche is not non-zygomatic is right if it is a kind of a backdrop. sent2: the gag is zygomatic if the cartouche is not a kinkajou. sent3: something is not non-normotensive but a kinkajou if it does not ascertain putrescence. sent4: the cartouche is a Hebbel. sent5: if the cartouche does not ascertain putrescence and it is not staphylococcal then the rounders does not ascertain putrescence. sent6: that the vicegerent ascertains putrescence and is not staphylococcal is not correct. sent7: if the etui does not ascertain putrescence the vicegerent does ascertain putrescence but it is not staphylococcal. sent8: if something is normotensive then it is a Hebbel. sent9: the etui does not ascertain putrescence if the cartouche is normotensive and a kinkajou. sent10: the rounders does not reflectorize an if that the gag is a backdrop and it is zygomatic hold. sent11: the cartouche does not ascertain putrescence and it is not staphylococcal if it is zygomatic. sent12: that the vicegerent is not staphylococcal hold. sent13: if the cartouche is a kind of a Hebbel then it is normotensive. sent14: something does reflectorize an if it is a kind of a Hebbel.
sent13 & sent4 -> int1: the cartouche is normotensive.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cartouche is a kinkajou.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the cartouche is normotensive thing that is a kinkajou.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the etui does not ascertain putrescence.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the vicegerent ascertains putrescence but it is not staphylococcal.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the cartouche is not a kinkajou.; int6 & sent2 -> int7: the gag is zygomatic.;
the rounders does reflectorize AN.
sent14 -> int8: if the fact that the rounders is a Hebbel hold then it does reflectorize AN.; sent8 -> int9: the rounders is a kind of a Hebbel if it is normotensive.; sent3 -> int10: if the fact that the rounders does not ascertain putrescence hold then it is normotensive and a kinkajou.;
$hypothesis$ = the rounders does not reflectorize AN. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the cartouche is not non-zygomatic is right if it is a kind of a backdrop. sent2: the gag is zygomatic if the cartouche is not a kinkajou. sent3: something is not non-normotensive but a kinkajou if it does not ascertain putrescence. sent4: the cartouche is a Hebbel. sent5: if the cartouche does not ascertain putrescence and it is not staphylococcal then the rounders does not ascertain putrescence. sent6: that the vicegerent ascertains putrescence and is not staphylococcal is not correct. sent7: if the etui does not ascertain putrescence the vicegerent does ascertain putrescence but it is not staphylococcal. sent8: if something is normotensive then it is a Hebbel. sent9: the etui does not ascertain putrescence if the cartouche is normotensive and a kinkajou. sent10: the rounders does not reflectorize an if that the gag is a backdrop and it is zygomatic hold. sent11: the cartouche does not ascertain putrescence and it is not staphylococcal if it is zygomatic. sent12: that the vicegerent is not staphylococcal hold. sent13: if the cartouche is a kind of a Hebbel then it is normotensive. sent14: something does reflectorize an if it is a kind of a Hebbel. ; $proof$ = 
sent13 & sent4 -> int1: the cartouche is normotensive.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the cartouche is a kinkajou.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the cartouche is normotensive thing that is a kinkajou.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the etui does not ascertain putrescence.; int3 & sent7 -> int4: the vicegerent ascertains putrescence but it is not staphylococcal.; int4 & sent6 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the cartouche is not a kinkajou.; int6 & sent2 -> int7: the gag is zygomatic.; __UNKNOWN__