that there exists something such that if it is a recessive then it is not a isometry and it is not ocular is not right.
sent1: a neurological thing is a kind of non-ocular thing that is not unreliable. sent2: there is something such that if it is a recessive it is not a isometry. sent3: if the flyleaf is a recessive it is both not a isometry and not ocular. sent4: the compendium is not ocular and it is not antennal if it is a Qibla. sent5: there exists something such that if it is recessive then it is not ocular. sent6: there is something such that if it fudges trillium then it does not circulate and it is expiratory. sent7: if the barmbrack is a isometry then that it is not anaerobic is true.
sent3 -> hypothesis;
if the flyleaf is neurological it is non-ocular and is not unreliable.
sent1 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a recessive then it is not a isometry and it is not ocular is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: a neurological thing is a kind of non-ocular thing that is not unreliable. sent2: there is something such that if it is a recessive it is not a isometry. sent3: if the flyleaf is a recessive it is both not a isometry and not ocular. sent4: the compendium is not ocular and it is not antennal if it is a Qibla. sent5: there exists something such that if it is recessive then it is not ocular. sent6: there is something such that if it fudges trillium then it does not circulate and it is expiratory. sent7: if the barmbrack is a isometry then that it is not anaerobic is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__