fencing: be played

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents sport
Weight: 0.62
, security system
Weight: 0.59
, action
Weight: 0.58
, activity
Weight: 0.55
, art
Weight: 0.55
Siblings archery
Weight: 0.33
, security guard
Weight: 0.33
, water polo
Weight: 0.32
, water sport
Weight: 0.32
, swimming pool
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
be played 1.00
was played 0.98
was originally played 0.87

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(archery, be played)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(archery, was played)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(archery, be played)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(archery, be played)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(archery, was played)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(archery, was played)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Salient(fencing, be played)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.21
Typical(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(fencing, was played)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(fencing, was played)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.25
Salient(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(fencing, was played)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(fencing, was originally played)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(fencing, was played)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.25
Salient(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(fencing, was originally played)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(fencing, was originally played)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.21
Typical(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(fencing, was originally played)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Salient(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(fencing, be played)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(fencing, be played)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(archery, was played)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(fencing, be played)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(archery, be played)