employer: be liable for pro quo harassment

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents institution
Weight: 0.65
, person
Weight: 0.64
, customer
Weight: 0.63
, payment
Weight: 0.63
Siblings corporation
Weight: 0.64
, newspaper
Weight: 0.61
, plaintiff
Weight: 0.60
, fast food chain
Weight: 0.55
, worker
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be liable for pro quo harassment 1.00
be liable for quo harassment 0.98
be liable for pro quo sexual harassment 0.98
be liable for quo sexual harassment 0.96
be liable for quid pro quo harassment 0.96
be liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment 0.95
be liable for quid quo harassment 0.94
be liable for quid quo sexual harassment 0.93

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

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment)

Similarity expansion

0.83
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(employer, be liable for quo harassment)
0.83
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo sexual harassment)
0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(employer, be liable for quo sexual harassment)
0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for quo harassment)
0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(employer, be liable for quid pro quo harassment)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(employer, be liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo sexual harassment)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(employer, be liable for quid quo harassment)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(employer, be liable for quid quo sexual harassment)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for quo sexual harassment)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for quid pro quo harassment)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for quid quo harassment)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for quid quo sexual harassment)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for quid quo sexual harassment)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for quo harassment)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for quid pro quo harassment)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo sexual harassment)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for quo sexual harassment)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(employer, be liable for quid quo harassment)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for quid pro quo sexual harassment)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for quo harassment)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for quid pro quo harassment)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for quid quo sexual harassment)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for quid quo harassment)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for quo sexual harassment)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo sexual harassment)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(employer, be liable for pro quo harassment)