hacker: attack

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents criminal
Weight: 0.63
, outsider
Weight: 0.63
, person
Weight: 0.57
, third party
Weight: 0.57
, individual
Weight: 0.55
Siblings spammer
Weight: 0.33
, pickpocket
Weight: 0.32
, terrorist
Weight: 0.32
, thief
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
attack 1.00
use attacks 0.87
do ddos attacks 0.86
commit cyber attacks 0.77

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(terrorist, attack)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(terrorist, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(terrorist, attack)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(hacker, attack)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.44
Typical(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(hacker, use attacks)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(hacker, do ddos attacks)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(hacker, do ddos attacks)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(hacker, do ddos attacks)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(hacker, use attacks)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.44
Typical(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(hacker, do ddos attacks)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(hacker, use attacks)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(hacker, commit cyber attacks)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.44
Typical(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(hacker, commit cyber attacks)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(hacker, commit cyber attacks)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(hacker, commit cyber attacks)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(hacker, use attacks)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.32
Salient(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(hacker, attack)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(hacker, attack)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(hacker, attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(terrorist, attack)