premise: Three traffic lights hang over Wilson Street.
hypothesis: The city could not afford to put a traffic light over Wilson Street.
explanation_1: The pieces of information that contradict each other are mention of city not affording to put the traffic lights when first sentence clearly say three traffic lights hanging over Wilson Street.
premise_logic: exists x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(ne_per_street(x4) & (x4 = x5) & ne_per_wilson(x5) & a_topic(x1) & over(x1,x4) & n_hang(x1) & of(x1,x3) & n_light(x3) & of(x1,x2) & n_traffic(x2) & card_eq_3(x1))
hypothesis_logic: exists x1 x4 x5.(ne_per_street(x4) & (x4 = x5) & ne_per_wilson(x5) & n_city(x1) & -exists e1 p1.(exists e2 p2.(Topic(e2,p2) & Actor(e2,x1) & v_afford(e2) & exists e3 x2 x3.(Theme(e3,x2) & Actor(e3,x1) & v_put(e3) & over(x2,x4) & n_light(x2) & of(x2,x3) & n_traffic(x3))) & Topic(e1,p1) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_could(e1)))
premise_sim: exists x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(over(x1,x4) & of(x1,x3) & of(x1,x2) & ne_per_wilson(x5) & ne_per_street(x4) & n_traffic(x2) & n_light(x3) & n_hang(x1) & card_eq_3(x1) & a_topic(x1) & (x4 = x5))
hypothesis_sim: exists x1 x4 x5.(ne_per_wilson(x5) & ne_per_street(x4) & n_city(x1) & all e1 p1.(all e2 p2.(all e3 x2 x3.(-v_put(e3) | -over(x2,x4) | -of(x2,x3) | -n_traffic(x3) | -n_light(x2) | -Theme(e3,x2) | -Actor(e3,x1)) | -v_afford(e2) | -Topic(e2,p2) | -Actor(e2,x1)) | -v_could(e1) | -Topic(e1,p1) | -Actor(e1,x1)) & (x4 = x5))