corruption: be prevalent in large organization

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents evil
Weight: 0.64
, obstacle
Weight: 0.61
, crime
Weight: 0.61
, factor
Weight: 0.61
, theme
Weight: 0.59
Siblings bribery
Weight: 0.35
, terrorism
Weight: 0.35
, fraud
Weight: 0.34
, poverty
Weight: 0.33
, hypocrisy
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be prevalent in large organization 1.00
be prevalent in organization 0.96
be prevalent in soccer organizations 0.87
be prevalent in downtown 0.80
be prevalent in uk 0.79
be widespread in latvia 0.78
be widespread in mongolia 0.78
be prevalent in europe 0.78
be prevalent in france 0.78
be prevalent in every downtown 0.78

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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(terrorism, be prevalent in france)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(terrorism, be prevalent in europe)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(terrorism, be prevalent in uk)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(terrorism, be prevalent in france)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(terrorism, be prevalent in france)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(terrorism, be prevalent in europe)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(terrorism, be prevalent in europe)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(terrorism, be prevalent in uk)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(terrorism, be prevalent in uk)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Salient(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(corruption, be prevalent in soccer organizations)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in soccer organizations)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in soccer organizations)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in organization)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(corruption, be prevalent in organization)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(corruption, be prevalent in organization)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(corruption, be prevalent in soccer organizations)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be widespread in mongolia)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in organization)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be widespread in latvia)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Salient(corruption, be widespread in mongolia)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Salient(corruption, be widespread in latvia)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(corruption, be widespread in mongolia)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(corruption, be widespread in latvia)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(corruption, be widespread in mongolia)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(corruption, be widespread in latvia)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(terrorism, be prevalent in france)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(terrorism, be prevalent in europe)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(corruption, be prevalent in large organization)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(terrorism, be prevalent in uk)