the florist is not noneffervescent.
sent1: if the florist is not a slump and is not a pique then the minestrone is not an analogue. sent2: something is not noneffervescent if the fact that it is not a kind of a slump and it is not a kind of a pique is incorrect. sent3: if the minestrone is a kind of effervescent thing that is not a slump the florist is not identical. sent4: the minestrone is an analogue and is not identical.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the florist is both not a slump and not a pique.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the minestrone is not a kind of an analogue.; sent4 -> int2: the minestrone is analogue.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the florist does not slump and it does not pique is not true.; sent2 -> int5: the florist is not noneffervescent if that it is not a slump and it does not pique is not correct.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the florist is not noneffervescent. ; $context$ = sent1: if the florist is not a slump and is not a pique then the minestrone is not an analogue. sent2: something is not noneffervescent if the fact that it is not a kind of a slump and it is not a kind of a pique is incorrect. sent3: if the minestrone is a kind of effervescent thing that is not a slump the florist is not identical. sent4: the minestrone is an analogue and is not identical. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the florist is both not a slump and not a pique.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the minestrone is not a kind of an analogue.; sent4 -> int2: the minestrone is analogue.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the florist does not slump and it does not pique is not true.; sent2 -> int5: the florist is not noneffervescent if that it is not a slump and it does not pique is not correct.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__