customer: importance of is service

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
importance of is service 1.00
is retention importance of flipkart 0.85
has quality service 0.80

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: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(intel, has quality service)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(intel, has quality service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(intel, has quality service)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(customer, importance of is service)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(customer, is retention importance of flipkart)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Salient(customer, is retention importance of flipkart)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(customer, has quality service)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(customer, has quality service)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(customer, is retention importance of flipkart)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(customer, has quality service)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(customer, is retention importance of flipkart)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(customer, has quality service)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(customer, importance of is service)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(customer, importance of is service)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(customer, importance of is service) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(intel, has quality service)