the shag is apogean but it is not unprovocative.
sent1: the fact that the shag is unprovocative does not hold. sent2: if something simmers it is apogean thing that is not unprovocative. sent3: that the shag is a specialization hold. sent4: if the shag is a kind of a simmer then that it is not unprovocative is correct. sent5: if the shag is a specialization it is a simmer. sent6: that something is not unprovocative if it is a simmer is correct. sent7: the transactinide is a covalence.
sent2 -> int1: the shag is apogean but not unprovocative if it does simmer.; sent5 & sent3 -> int2: the shag does simmer.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;
that the shag is apogean but it is not unprovocative is false.
sent7 -> int3: there exists something such that it is a covalence.;
$hypothesis$ = the shag is apogean but it is not unprovocative. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the shag is unprovocative does not hold. sent2: if something simmers it is apogean thing that is not unprovocative. sent3: that the shag is a specialization hold. sent4: if the shag is a kind of a simmer then that it is not unprovocative is correct. sent5: if the shag is a specialization it is a simmer. sent6: that something is not unprovocative if it is a simmer is correct. sent7: the transactinide is a covalence. ; $proof$ = 
sent2 -> int1: the shag is apogean but not unprovocative if it does simmer.; sent5 & sent3 -> int2: the shag does simmer.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__