premise: Two hockey players battling for the puck after a face off.
hypothesis: Nobody has a hockey stick.
explanation_1: If the players are battling for the puck in sentence one then sentence two somebody has to have a hockey stick, not nobody
explanation_2: One cannot be battling for the puck without a hockey stick.
explanation_3: If there are two hockey players, there can not be "nobody".
premise_logic: exists e1 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(n_puck(x4) & a_topic(x1) & after(e1,x5) & r_off(x5) & n_face(x5) & for(e1,x4) & Actor(e1,x3) & v_battle(e1) & (x1 = x3) & n_player(x1) & of(x1,x2) & n_hockey(x2) & card_eq_2(x1))
hypothesis_logic: -exists e1 x1 x2 x3.(Theme(e1,x2) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_have(e1) & n_stick(x2) & of(x2,x3) & n_hockey(x3) & n_person(x1))
premise_sim: exists e1 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(v_battle(e1) & r_off(x5) & of(x1,x2) & n_puck(x4) & n_player(x1) & n_hockey(x2) & n_face(x5) & for(e1,x4) & card_eq_2(x1) & after(e1,x5) & a_topic(x1) & Actor(e1,x3) & (x1 = x3))
hypothesis_sim: all e1 x1 x2 x3.(-v_have(e1) | -of(x2,x3) | -n_stick(x2) | -n_person(x1) | -n_hockey(x3) | -Theme(e1,x2) | -Actor(e1,x1))