appeal: be effective in advertising

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents factor
Weight: 0.60
, claim
Weight: 0.59
, challenge
Weight: 0.58
, attribute
Weight: 0.57
Siblings action
Weight: 0.58
, pathos
Weight: 0.39
, judgment
Weight: 0.32
, attraction
Weight: 0.31
, matter
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
be effective in advertising 1.00
be important in advertising 0.94
is effective 0.82
is more effective 0.81
is most effective 0.78
be important to marketers 0.77

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

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(pathos, is most effective)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(pathos, is effective)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(pathos, is more effective)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(pathos, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(pathos, is effective)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(pathos, is more effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(pathos, is more effective)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(pathos, is most effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(pathos, is most effective)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(appeal, be effective in advertising)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(appeal, be important in advertising)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(appeal, be important in advertising)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(appeal, be important in advertising)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be important in advertising)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(appeal, be important to marketers)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(appeal, is effective)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(appeal, be important to marketers)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(appeal, is effective)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(appeal, be important to marketers)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be important to marketers)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(appeal, is effective)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(appeal, be effective in advertising)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(pathos, is effective)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(pathos, is more effective)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(pathos, is most effective)