hacker: get caught

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
get caught 1.00
be caught 0.98

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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(criminal, get caught)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(hacker, get caught)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(criminal, get caught)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(criminal, get caught)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(criminal, get caught)
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(hacker, get caught)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Salient(hacker, get caught)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(hacker, be caught)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.51
Salient(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Salient(hacker, be caught)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(hacker, be caught)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.29
Typical(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(hacker, be caught)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Salient(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(hacker, get caught)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(hacker, get caught)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(criminal, get caught)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
Typical(hacker, get caught)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(criminal, get caught)