premise: A dad with his child and an apple pie.
hypothesis: A dad is with his child.
explanation_1: Dad with his child and an apple pie is a type of dad.
explanation_2: The dad and the child in sentence 1 do not depend on the presence of an apple pie, they are the same pair.
explanation_3: A dad with his child and an apple pie so dad is with his child.
premise_logic: exists x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(a_topic(x1) & with(x1,x2) & subset_of(x4,x2) & n_pie(x4) & of(x4,x5) & n_apple(x5) & subset_of(x3,x2) & n_child(x3) & of(x3,x1) & n_male(x1) & n_dad(x1))
hypothesis_logic: exists p1 x1 x2.(with(x1,x2) & n_child(x2) & of(x2,x1) & n_male(x1) & n_dad(x1))
premise_sim: exists x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(with(x1,x2) & subset_of(x4,x2) & subset_of(x3,x2) & of(x4,x5) & of(x3,x1) & n_pie(x4) & n_male(x1) & n_dad(x1) & n_child(x3) & n_apple(x5) & a_topic(x1))
hypothesis_sim: exists x1 x2.(with(x1,x2) & of(x2,x1) & n_male(x1) & n_dad(x1) & n_child(x2))