cleveland: have bad reputation

Related concepts

Parents	new york Weight: 0.64 , ohio Weight: 0.62 , team Weight: 0.60 , town Weight: 0.57
Siblings	new york city Weight: 0.37 , philadelphia Weight: 0.36 , miami Weight: 0.36 , boston Weight: 0.36 , washington Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property	Similarity
have bad reputation	1.00
have reputation	0.97
has quality bad	0.81
has quality good	0.77

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Remarkable(philadelphia, have bad reputation)

0.11

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Remarkable(philadelphia, have reputation)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Remarkable(miami, has quality bad)

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Remarkable(boston, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

Remarkable(philadelphia, have reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(philadelphia, have reputation)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

Remarkable(philadelphia, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.43

¬ Plausible(philadelphia, have bad reputation)

0.40

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

Remarkable(boston, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Plausible(boston, has quality bad)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

Remarkable(miami, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Plausible(miami, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Salient(cleveland, have bad reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.76

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.49

Typical(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Typical(cleveland, have reputation)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Plausible(cleveland, have reputation)

0.45

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.49

Typical(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Typical(cleveland, has quality good)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.49

Typical(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Typical(cleveland, has quality bad)

0.40

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.19

Salient(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Salient(cleveland, have reputation)

0.39

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.17

Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, has quality bad)

0.34

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Plausible(cleveland, has quality bad)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(cleveland, has quality good)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.19

Salient(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Salient(cleveland, has quality bad)

0.20

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.17

Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, has quality good)

0.20

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.19

Salient(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Salient(cleveland, has quality good)

0.19

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.17

Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have reputation)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

Salient(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.23

Plausible(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(cleveland, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Typical(philadelphia, have reputation)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Typical(philadelphia, have bad reputation)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Typical(miami, has quality bad)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Remarkable(cleveland, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Typical(boston, has quality bad)