clinton: was good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents liberal
Weight: 0.65
, politician
Weight: 0.63
, candidate
Weight: 0.62
, man
Weight: 0.62
Siblings bill clinton
Weight: 0.72
, jesse james
Weight: 0.35
, michael jackson
Weight: 0.35
, john smith
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
was good 1.00
was great 0.90
is great 0.83
has quality bad 0.81
is scandal-proof 0.76
is duche 0.76
is perfect 0.75

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

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(bill clinton, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(michael jackson, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(michael jackson, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(michael jackson, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(bill clinton, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(bill clinton, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(clinton, was good)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(clinton, was great)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(clinton, was great)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(clinton, was great)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(clinton, was great)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(clinton, is great)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(clinton, is duche)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(clinton, is duche)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(clinton, is great)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(clinton, is great)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Salient(clinton, is duche)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Salient(clinton, is perfect)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(clinton, is great)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(clinton, is scandal-proof)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(clinton, is perfect)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(clinton, is perfect)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(clinton, is perfect)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(clinton, is scandal-proof)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(clinton, is scandal-proof)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(clinton, is scandal-proof)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(clinton, is duche)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(clinton, was good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(clinton, was good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(michael jackson, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(clinton, was good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(bill clinton, has quality bad)