the fact that there exists something such that if it denationalizes leg and is not non-cross-sectional then it is not eutrophic is not true.
sent1: there is something such that if it is a willet and it is domestic then it does not conscript Lippizan. sent2: something that denationalizes leg and is cross-sectional is not eutrophic. sent3: if something does denationalize leg and it is cross-sectional it is eutrophic. sent4: there exists something such that if it denationalizes leg and is cross-sectional then it is eutrophic. sent5: that the Lama is eutrophic is not false if it does denationalize leg and is cross-sectional.
sent2 -> int1: that the Lama is not eutrophic is true if it denationalizes leg and is cross-sectional.; int1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it denationalizes leg and is not non-cross-sectional then it is not eutrophic is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a willet and it is domestic then it does not conscript Lippizan. sent2: something that denationalizes leg and is cross-sectional is not eutrophic. sent3: if something does denationalize leg and it is cross-sectional it is eutrophic. sent4: there exists something such that if it denationalizes leg and is cross-sectional then it is eutrophic. sent5: that the Lama is eutrophic is not false if it does denationalize leg and is cross-sectional. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: that the Lama is not eutrophic is true if it denationalizes leg and is cross-sectional.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__