construction worker: have big hands

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents worker
Weight: 0.88
, employee
Weight: 0.74
, project
Weight: 0.67
, contractor
Weight: 0.64
Siblings carpenter
Weight: 0.70
, engineer
Weight: 0.65
, roofer
Weight: 0.63
, mason
Weight: 0.63
, electrician
Weight: 0.63

Related properties

Property Similarity
have big hands 1.00
has physical part hands 0.87

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(carpenter, have big hands)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(carpenter, has physical part hands)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(carpenter, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(carpenter, have big hands)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(carpenter, has physical part hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(carpenter, has physical part hands)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(construction worker, have big hands)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(construction worker, has physical part hands)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(construction worker, has physical part hands)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(construction worker, has physical part hands)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, has physical part hands)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, have big hands)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(construction worker, have big hands)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(carpenter, has physical part hands)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, have big hands) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(carpenter, have big hands)