blind people: have dogs

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents group
Weight: 0.61
, everyone
Weight: 0.60
, individual
Weight: 0.59
, pedestrian
Weight: 0.52
, thing
Weight: 0.52
Siblings poor people
Weight: 0.34
, deaf people
Weight: 0.34
, homeless person
Weight: 0.34
, different people
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
have dogs 1.00
be used as dog walkers 0.84

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

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(blind people, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(homeless person, have dogs)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(blind people, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(homeless person, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(homeless person, have dogs)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(blind people, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Salient(blind people, have dogs)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Salient(blind people, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(blind people, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(blind people, have dogs)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(blind people, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(blind people, have dogs)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(blind people, have dogs)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(homeless person, have dogs)