attorney: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents defense attorney
Weight: 0.74
, agent
Weight: 0.62
, office
Weight: 0.62
, witness
Weight: 0.61
Siblings partner
Weight: 0.65
, prosecutor
Weight: 0.62
, associate
Weight: 0.59
, paralegal
Weight: 0.57
, solicitor
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality air 0.82
has quality function 0.78
is best 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(office, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(attorney, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agent, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(attorney, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(office, has quality air) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(attorney, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(agent, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(office, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(office, has quality air)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(agent, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(office, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(office, has quality air)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(solicitor, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(solicitor, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(paralegal, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(partner, has quality function)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(office, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(attorney, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(agent, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(attorney, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(office, has quality air) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(attorney, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(paralegal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(paralegal, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(solicitor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(solicitor, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(solicitor, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(solicitor, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(partner, has quality function) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(partner, has quality function)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(attorney, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(attorney, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(agent, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(office, has quality air)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(office, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(partner, has quality function)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(paralegal, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(solicitor, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(solicitor, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(agent, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(office, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(attorney, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(office, has quality air)