customer: be important in retailing

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents computer user
Weight: 0.65
, fan
Weight: 0.64
, constituent
Weight: 0.63
, business people
Weight: 0.62
Siblings employer
Weight: 0.63
, staff
Weight: 0.62
, intel
Weight: 0.60
, asset
Weight: 0.59
, john deere
Weight: 0.58

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important in retailing 1.00
be important to business 0.77
be important in hospitality industry 0.76

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: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(employer, be important to business)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(employer, be important to business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(employer, be important to business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(customer, be important in retailing)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(customer, be important in hospitality industry)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(customer, be important to business)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(customer, be important to business)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(customer, be important in hospitality industry)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(customer, be important in hospitality industry)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(customer, be important to business)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(customer, be important in hospitality industry)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(customer, be important to business)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(customer, be important in retailing)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(customer, be important in retailing)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(customer, be important in retailing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(employer, be important to business)