blackmail: has quality wrong

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.58
, action
Weight: 0.50
, crime
Weight: 0.49
, word
Weight: 0.49
, activity
Weight: 0.44
Siblings bribe
Weight: 0.33
, coercion
Weight: 0.32
, sexual harassment
Weight: 0.32
, cheating
Weight: 0.32
, retribution
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality wrong 1.00
is wrong anyway 0.88
has quality good 0.85

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

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(sexual harassment, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(cheating, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(retribution, has quality wrong)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(coercion, has quality wrong)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(cheating, has quality wrong)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(cheating, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(cheating, has quality wrong)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(coercion, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(coercion, has quality wrong)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(sexual harassment, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(sexual harassment, has quality wrong)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(retribution, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(retribution, has quality wrong)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(cheating, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(cheating, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(blackmail, has quality wrong)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, is wrong anyway)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Salient(blackmail, is wrong anyway)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Salient(blackmail, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(blackmail, is wrong anyway)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(blackmail, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(blackmail, is wrong anyway)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(blackmail, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(blackmail, has quality wrong)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(coercion, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(cheating, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(sexual harassment, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(retribution, has quality wrong)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(blackmail, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(cheating, has quality good)