architect: be under threat

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents contractor
Weight: 0.71
, design
Weight: 0.71
, artist
Weight: 0.64
, plan
Weight: 0.63
, specialist
Weight: 0.62
Siblings engineer
Weight: 0.36
, builder
Weight: 0.35
, painter
Weight: 0.35
, carpenter
Weight: 0.34
, construction worker
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be under threat 1.00
have under threat jobs 0.91

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: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(builder, have under threat jobs)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(builder, be under threat)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(builder, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(builder, be under threat)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(builder, have under threat jobs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(builder, have under threat jobs)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(architect, be under threat)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(architect, have under threat jobs)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Salient(architect, have under threat jobs)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(architect, be under threat)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(architect, be under threat)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(builder, be under threat)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(architect, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(builder, have under threat jobs)