appeal: is effective

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
is effective 1.00
is more effective 0.96
is most effective 0.93
be effective in advertising 0.82

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

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(pathos, is most effective)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(pathos, is effective)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(pathos, is more effective)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(pathos, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(pathos, is effective)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(pathos, is more effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(pathos, is more effective)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(pathos, is most effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(pathos, is most effective)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(appeal, is effective)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(appeal, be effective in advertising)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(appeal, be effective in advertising)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(appeal, be effective in advertising)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(appeal, be effective in advertising)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(appeal, is effective)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(pathos, is effective)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(pathos, is more effective)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(appeal, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(pathos, is most effective)