accountant: need understand

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents person
Weight: 0.63
, specialist
Weight: 0.63
, financial institution
Weight: 0.63
, department
Weight: 0.60
, professional
Weight: 0.59
Siblings cpa
Weight: 0.53
, lawyer
Weight: 0.35
, stockbroker
Weight: 0.35
, banker
Weight: 0.34
, paralegal
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
need understand 1.00
do 0.83
decide when recognize 0.82
need embrace 0.77
know about information system 0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(cpa, do)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(banker, do)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, do)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(lawyer, do) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(lawyer, do)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(cpa, do) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(cpa, do)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(banker, do) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(banker, do)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(accountant, need understand)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(accountant, do)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Salient(accountant, do)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(accountant, do)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(accountant, do)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(accountant, decide when recognize)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need embrace)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(accountant, know about information system)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(accountant, need embrace)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(accountant, decide when recognize)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(accountant, need embrace)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(accountant, know about information system)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(accountant, need embrace)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(accountant, decide when recognize)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(accountant, know about information system)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(accountant, know about information system)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(accountant, decide when recognize)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need understand)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(accountant, need understand)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(lawyer, do)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(cpa, do)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(accountant, need understand) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(banker, do)