employee: understand legislative requirements as contract law

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents other person
Weight: 0.69
, partner
Weight: 0.65
, creditor
Weight: 0.64
, officer
Weight: 0.63
Siblings office worker
Weight: 0.74
, construction worker
Weight: 0.74
, salesperson
Weight: 0.70
, receptionist
Weight: 0.69
, waiter
Weight: 0.69

Related properties

Property Similarity
understand legislative requirements as contract law 1.00
understand requirements as contract law 0.95
understand legislative requirements 0.93
know legislative requirements 0.92
understand requirements 0.84
know requirements 0.82
need protection through legislation 0.79
leave law firms 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(partner, leave law firms) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(partner, leave law firms)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(partner, leave law firms)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(partner, leave law firms) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(employee, understand legislative requirements)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(employee, understand legislative requirements)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(employee, understand legislative requirements)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(employee, understand legislative requirements)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Typical(employee, understand requirements)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(employee, understand requirements)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(employee, understand requirements)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(employee, understand requirements)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(partner, leave law firms)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(employee, understand legislative requirements as contract law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(partner, leave law firms)