premise: A little red-haired boy runs down a grassy hill followed behind by two girls.
hypothesis: An adult ginger walking up a hill.
explanation_1: It's implied that red-haired and ginger are the same. The little boy is not an adult, he's running and not walking, and he's going downhill as opposed to uphill.
explanation_2: The words in the sentences contradict each other because the first sentence is talking about a little red headed boy and the second sentence is talking about an adult ginger
explanation_3: The person on the hill is either little or an adult  The person must either run or be walking. The person must be going either up or down the hill.
premise_logic: exists e1 e2 s1 s2 s3 s4 x1 x2 x3 x4.(by(e2,x4) & n_girl(x4) & card_eq_2(x4) & a_behind(s4) & Manner(e2,s4) & Actor(e2,x2) & v_follow(e2) & n_hill(x2) & of(x2,x3) & n_grassy(x3) & a_down(s3) & Manner(e1,s3) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_run(e1) & n_boy(x1) & a_red-haired(s2) & Theme(s2,x1) & a_little(s1) & Theme(s1,x1))
hypothesis_logic: exists e1 s1 x1 x2 x3 x4.(a_topic(x1) & a_up(s1) & Manner(e1,s1) & Theme(e1,x4) & Actor(e1,x3) & v_walk(e1) & n_hill(x4) & (x1 = x3) & n_ginger(x1) & of(x1,x2) & n_adult(x2))