premise: A train conductor in coveralls is standing in the door of the trail.
hypothesis: A train conductor is standing in a door.
explanation_1: A conductor is standing in the door of the trail.
explanation_2: The train conductor is standing in the door so therefore the second sentence is valid.
explanation_3: "A train conductor is standing in a door" is a form of "A train conductor in coveralls is standing in the door of the trail."
premise_logic: exists e1 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(n_trail(x5) & n_door(x4) & in(e1,x4) & of(x4,x5) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_stand(e1) & in(x1,x3) & n_coverall(x3) & n_conductor(x1) & of(x1,x2) & n_train(x2))
hypothesis_logic: exists e1 x1 x2 x3.(in(e1,x3) & n_door(x3) & Actor(e1,x1) & v_stand(e1) & n_conductor(x1) & of(x1,x2) & n_train(x2))
premise_sim: exists e1 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5.(v_stand(e1) & of(x4,x5) & of(x1,x2) & n_train(x2) & n_trail(x5) & n_door(x4) & n_coverall(x3) & n_conductor(x1) & in(x1,x3) & in(e1,x4) & Actor(e1,x1))
hypothesis_sim: exists e1 x1 x2 x3.(v_stand(e1) & of(x1,x2) & n_train(x2) & n_door(x3) & n_conductor(x1) & in(e1,x3) & Actor(e1,x1))