the follow-up is not an anesthesiologist.
sent1: the mandolin is not a kind of a gorgerin or it does glaze or both if the dipper is not an agribusiness. sent2: the midge does complete and numbers incontrovertibility. sent3: if the dipper is not a kind of a glazed then that the stroma is a used-car and it is a kind of an agribusiness is incorrect. sent4: the stroma does not complete. sent5: the dipper does number cactus if the mandolin is intensive. sent6: the fact that the dipper is not intensive is not wrong. sent7: the dipper is not an agribusiness. sent8: if the midge is intensive the fact that the follow-up does not complete but it numbers incontrovertibility is false. sent9: if the mandolin either is not a gorgerin or is a glazed or both then that it glazed hold. sent10: that the dipper is greenside is not incorrect. sent11: if the midge is an anesthesiologist then the follow-up is complete. sent12: the follow-up is not an anesthesiologist if there exists something such that that it is not an agribusiness and is a glazed does not hold. sent13: if the midge does number incontrovertibility then the mandolin is intensive. sent14: there exists something such that it is intensive and it does not number incontrovertibility. sent15: if something numbers cactus then it is not a used-car. sent16: the midge is a putout if something is intensive thing that does not number incontrovertibility. sent17: if the dipper is not a used-car then that the stroma is an agribusiness and it is a glazed is wrong.
sent2 -> int1: that the midge does number incontrovertibility is true.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the mandolin is intensive.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the dipper numbers cactus.; sent15 -> int4: if the dipper does number cactus it is not a used-car.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the dipper is not a used-car.;
the follow-up is a kind of an anesthesiologist.
sent1 & sent7 -> int6: the mandolin is not a gorgerin and/or it is a glazed.; sent9 & int6 -> int7: the mandolin is a kind of a glazed.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it does glaze.;
$hypothesis$ = the follow-up is not an anesthesiologist. ; $context$ = sent1: the mandolin is not a kind of a gorgerin or it does glaze or both if the dipper is not an agribusiness. sent2: the midge does complete and numbers incontrovertibility. sent3: if the dipper is not a kind of a glazed then that the stroma is a used-car and it is a kind of an agribusiness is incorrect. sent4: the stroma does not complete. sent5: the dipper does number cactus if the mandolin is intensive. sent6: the fact that the dipper is not intensive is not wrong. sent7: the dipper is not an agribusiness. sent8: if the midge is intensive the fact that the follow-up does not complete but it numbers incontrovertibility is false. sent9: if the mandolin either is not a gorgerin or is a glazed or both then that it glazed hold. sent10: that the dipper is greenside is not incorrect. sent11: if the midge is an anesthesiologist then the follow-up is complete. sent12: the follow-up is not an anesthesiologist if there exists something such that that it is not an agribusiness and is a glazed does not hold. sent13: if the midge does number incontrovertibility then the mandolin is intensive. sent14: there exists something such that it is intensive and it does not number incontrovertibility. sent15: if something numbers cactus then it is not a used-car. sent16: the midge is a putout if something is intensive thing that does not number incontrovertibility. sent17: if the dipper is not a used-car then that the stroma is an agribusiness and it is a glazed is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: that the midge does number incontrovertibility is true.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the mandolin is intensive.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the dipper numbers cactus.; sent15 -> int4: if the dipper does number cactus it is not a used-car.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the dipper is not a used-car.; __UNKNOWN__