premise: Two hockey players are playing hockey in an ice arena with an advisement of Geico in the background
hypothesis: There is an ad nearby.
explanation_1: There is nothing in sentence 2 that cannot be inferred from the information in sentence 1. However, nearby makes it a little vague.
premise_logic: exists e1 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8.(n_background(x8) & ne_geo_geico(x7) & in(e1,x8) & with(e1,x6) & of(x6,x7) & n_advisement(x6) & in(e1,x4) & n_arena(x4) & of(x4,x5) & n_ice(x5) & Theme(e1,x3) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_play(e1) & n_hockey(x3) & n_player(x1) & of(x1,x2) & n_hockey(x2) & card_eq_2(x1))
hypothesis_logic: exists p1 s1 x1.(a_nearby(s1) & Manner(p1,s1) & exists x2.((x1 = x2) & n_ad(x2)))
premise_sim: exists e1 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8.(with(e1,x6) & v_play(e1) & of(x6,x7) & of(x4,x5) & of(x1,x2) & ne_geo_geico(x7) & n_player(x1) & n_ice(x5) & n_hockey(x3) & n_hockey(x2) & n_background(x8) & n_arena(x4) & n_advisement(x6) & in(e1,x8) & in(e1,x4) & card_eq_2(x1) & Theme(e1,x3) & Actor(e1,x1))
hypothesis_sim: exists p1 s1 x1.(exists x2.(n_ad(x2) & (x1 = x2)) & a_nearby(s1) & Manner(p1,s1))