1.	It was quite unclear how the experiments performed in the work to corroborate the authors’ theory did that. In the random premise task – how could the authors ensure that the random predicate indeed resulted in NO-ENTAIL? I understand that such random sampling has a very small probability of resulting in something that is not NO-ENTAIL, but given that many predicates have synonyms, and other predicates whom they entail, and hence by proxy the current hypothesis might also entail, it feels like it is crucial to ensure that indeed NO-ENTAIL was the case for all the instances (as this is not the train set, but rather the evaluation set).
2.	Additionally, it was not clear how the generic argument task and the random argument task proved what the authors claimed. All in all, the whole dataset transformation and the ensuing experimental setup felt very cumbersome, and not very clear.
2. Additionally, it was not clear how the generic argument task and the random argument task proved what the authors claimed. All in all, the whole dataset transformation and the ensuing experimental setup felt very cumbersome, and not very clear.