french restaurant: be used to eat frog leg

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents restaurant
Weight: 0.76
, place
Weight: 0.57
, must
Weight: 0.48
, food
Weight: 0.45
Siblings italian restaurant
Weight: 0.42
, chinese restaurant
Weight: 0.41
, mexican restaurant
Weight: 0.40
, japanese restaurant
Weight: 0.40
, indian restaurant
Weight: 0.40

Related properties

Property Similarity
be used to eat frog leg 1.00
be used to eat snail 0.82
be likely to serve snail 0.76
be used to eat egg roll 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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(chinese restaurant, be used to eat egg roll)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(chinese restaurant, be used to eat egg roll)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(chinese restaurant, be used to eat egg roll)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Salient(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(french restaurant, be used to eat snail)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(french restaurant, be used to eat snail)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Salient(french restaurant, be likely to serve snail)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(french restaurant, be likely to serve snail)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(french restaurant, be used to eat snail)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Salient(french restaurant, be used to eat snail)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(french restaurant, be likely to serve snail)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(french restaurant, be likely to serve snail)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)

Typical implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(french restaurant, be used to eat frog leg)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(chinese restaurant, be used to eat egg roll)