catering: be in california

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents industry
Weight: 0.61
, sector
Weight: 0.59
, service
Weight: 0.56
, department
Weight: 0.56
Siblings escort service
Weight: 0.34
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.33
, postal service
Weight: 0.33
, banking industry
Weight: 0.33
, bar service
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in california 1.00
be in illinois 0.80
is houston 0.79
be in southern illinois 0.78
be bad in europe 0.78
be bad in spain 0.77
be in chicago 0.76
be in india 0.76
is omaha 0.76
be bad in uk 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

0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(service, be in southern illinois) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(catering, be in california)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(service, be bad in europe) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(catering, be in california)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(service, be bad in spain) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(catering, be in california)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(service, be bad in uk) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(catering, be in california)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(service, be bad in europe)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(service, be bad in spain)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(service, be bad in uk)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(service, be in southern illinois)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(service, be bad in spain)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(service, be bad in europe)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(service, be bad in uk)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(service, be in southern illinois)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(service, be in southern illinois) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, be in california)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(service, be bad in europe) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, be in california)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(service, be bad in spain) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, be in california)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(service, be bad in uk) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, be in california)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(catering, be in california)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(catering, is houston)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(catering, is omaha)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(catering, is houston)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(catering, is houston)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(catering, is omaha)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(catering, is omaha)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(catering, is houston)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(catering, is omaha)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(catering, be in california)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(service, be bad in europe)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(service, be bad in uk)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(service, be bad in spain)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(service, be in southern illinois)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(service, be bad in europe)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(service, be in southern illinois)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(service, be bad in spain)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(catering, be in california) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(service, be bad in uk)