premise: A woman is riding a bike as a child rides on the back of the bike.
hypothesis: A woman is riding a bike as a kid rides on the back.
explanation_1: a kid and a child are the same thing. the woman and the fact that the kid is on the back is explicit in both sentences.
explanation_2: The child could only ride on the back of the bike.
explanation_3: child rides on the back is inferred as kid rides on the back.
premise_logic: exists e1 p1 x1 x2 x4.(n_back(x4) & exists e2 x3.(on(e2,x4) & of(x4,x2) & Actor(e2,x3) & v_ride(e2) & n_child(x3)) & n_bike(x2) & n_bike(x2) & as(e1,p1) & Theme(e1,x2) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_ride(e1) & n_woman(x1))
hypothesis_logic: exists e1 p1 x1 x2 x4.(n_back(x4) & exists e2 x3.(on(e2,x4) & Actor(e2,x3) & v_ride(e2) & n_kid(x3)) & as(e1,p1) & Theme(e1,x2) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_ride(e1) & n_bike(x2) & n_woman(x1))