brand: is successful

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents name
Weight: 0.68
, concept
Weight: 0.64
, industry
Weight: 0.62
, symbol
Weight: 0.62
Siblings label
Weight: 0.70
, premium
Weight: 0.68
, hermes
Weight: 0.67
, chevrolet
Weight: 0.66
, pepsi
Weight: 0.66

Related properties

Property Similarity
is successful 1.00
be important to success of business 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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, is successful)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(hermes, is successful)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(hermes, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(hermes, is successful)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(pepsi, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(pepsi, is successful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(brand, is successful)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(brand, be important to success of business)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(brand, be important to success of business)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(brand, be important to success of business)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(brand, be important to success of business)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(brand, is successful)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(brand, is successful)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(hermes, is successful)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(brand, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(pepsi, is successful)