client: has state care

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents creditor
Weight: 0.63
, family member
Weight: 0.62
, enterprise
Weight: 0.61
, partner
Weight: 0.61
Siblings real estate agent
Weight: 0.67
, owner
Weight: 0.63
, drug dealer
Weight: 0.63
, samsung
Weight: 0.62
, rolling stone
Weight: 0.61

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state care 1.00
is care important 0.89
be centred care important 0.89
has state health 0.85
is centered care 0.78
is centered care important 0.77
be premium care 0.77

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(samsung, has state health)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(samsung, has state health) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(samsung, has state health)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(client, has state care)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(client, is care important)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(client, is centered care important)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(client, is centered care)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(client, be centred care important)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(client, is care important)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(client, has state care)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(client, has state care)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(client, has state care) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(samsung, has state health)