hacking: seem easier

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents crime
Weight: 0.63
, computer network
Weight: 0.57
, activity
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.55
, breach
Weight: 0.53
Siblings computer virus
Weight: 0.35
, hack
Weight: 0.33
, stealing
Weight: 0.32
, sexual harassment
Weight: 0.32
, piracy
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
seem easier 1.00
be easy 0.83
is easy 0.83

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: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(stealing, is easy)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(stealing, is easy) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(stealing, is easy)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(hacking, seem easier)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(hacking, be easy)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(hacking, is easy)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(hacking, be easy)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(hacking, is easy)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(hacking, is easy)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(hacking, be easy)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(hacking, is easy)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.42
Typical(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(hacking, be easy)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(hacking, seem easier)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(hacking, seem easier)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(hacking, seem easier) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(stealing, is easy)