that the etanercept is not prosthodontics and does not normalize hemin is incorrect.
sent1: the sourpuss is not polydactyl. sent2: the etanercept is non-prosthodontics. sent3: the etanercept is not prosthodontics if the sourpuss is prosthodontics. sent4: if the sourpuss is not prosthodontics then the etanercept is prosthodontics and it does not normalize hemin. sent5: the fact that the sourpuss is prosthodontics and not polydactyl does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is not interlocutory is true.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sourpuss is prosthodontics.; assump1 & sent1 -> int1: the sourpuss is prosthodontics but it is not polydactyl.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the sourpuss is not prosthodontics.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;
the burglar is not prosthodontics.
$hypothesis$ = that the etanercept is not prosthodontics and does not normalize hemin is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the sourpuss is not polydactyl. sent2: the etanercept is non-prosthodontics. sent3: the etanercept is not prosthodontics if the sourpuss is prosthodontics. sent4: if the sourpuss is not prosthodontics then the etanercept is prosthodontics and it does not normalize hemin. sent5: the fact that the sourpuss is prosthodontics and not polydactyl does not hold. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is not interlocutory is true. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sourpuss is prosthodontics.; assump1 & sent1 -> int1: the sourpuss is prosthodontics but it is not polydactyl.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the sourpuss is not prosthodontics.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__