premise: Two young children, one wearing a red striped shirt, are looking in through the window while an adult in a pink shirt watches from behind.
hypothesis: Nobody has a shirt
explanation_1: Two young children are more than nobody at all.
explanation_2: The adult watching from behind does have a pink shirt.  Therefore, we cannot say that nobody has a shirt because at least one person is wearing one.
explanation_3: If nobody had a shirt then a kid cannot be wearing a shirt and watching an adult who is wearing a pink shirt
premise_logic: exists e1 e2 s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 x9.(n_window(x5) & while(e2,x6) & in(x6,x7) & from(x7,x9) & n_behind(x9) & n_watch(x7) & of(x7,x8) & n_shirt(x8) & a_pink(s5) & Theme(s5,x7) & n_adult(x6) & a_in(s4) & Manner(e2,s4) & through(e2,x5) & Actor(e2,x1) & v_look(e2) & rel(x1,x2) & Theme(e1,x4) & Actor(e1,x3) & v_wear(e1) & n_shirt(x4) & a_striped(s3) & Theme(s3,x4) & a_red(s2) & Theme(s2,x4) & (x2 = x3) & n_thing(x2) & card_eq_1(x2) & n_child(x1) & a_young(s1) & Theme(s1,x1) & card_eq_2(x1))
hypothesis_logic: -exists e1 x1 x2.(Theme(e1,x2) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_have(e1) & n_shirt(x2) & n_person(x1))