the nephron does not corkscrew boondoggle but it is circular.
sent1: the nephron is a profundity if the ramontchi is a kind of a profundity. sent2: if something is a profundity and it is a latter the ramontchi is not epigastric. sent3: there is something such that that it is vice-presidential hold. sent4: if something is a profundity then that it does not corkscrew boondoggle and is a kind of a circular is false. sent5: the nude is a profundity and it is a latter.
sent5 -> int1: something is a kind of a profundity and it is a latter.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the ramontchi is not epigastric.;
the fact that the nephron does not corkscrew boondoggle but it is a kind of a circular is wrong.
sent4 -> int3: if the nephron is a profundity then that it does not corkscrew boondoggle and it is not non-circular does not hold.;
$hypothesis$ = the nephron does not corkscrew boondoggle but it is circular. ; $context$ = sent1: the nephron is a profundity if the ramontchi is a kind of a profundity. sent2: if something is a profundity and it is a latter the ramontchi is not epigastric. sent3: there is something such that that it is vice-presidential hold. sent4: if something is a profundity then that it does not corkscrew boondoggle and is a kind of a circular is false. sent5: the nude is a profundity and it is a latter. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: something is a kind of a profundity and it is a latter.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the ramontchi is not epigastric.; __UNKNOWN__