la: compare to chicago

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents place
Weight: 0.53
, city
Weight: 0.53
, movie
Weight: 0.52
, song
Weight: 0.52
Siblings rio de janeiro
Weight: 0.32
, des moines
Weight: 0.32
, tierra del fuego
Weight: 0.32
, ala
Weight: 0.32
, di
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
compare to chicago 1.00
compare to atlanta 0.88
be better than nyc 0.80
be better than york 0.75

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

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Salient(la, compare to chicago)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(la, compare to atlanta)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(la, compare to atlanta)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.19
Salient(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(la, compare to atlanta)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(la, be better than york)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.19
Salient(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Salient(la, be better than york)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(la, be better than nyc)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(la, be better than york)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(la, be better than york)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(la, compare to atlanta)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(la, be better than nyc)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.19
Salient(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(la, be better than nyc)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(la, be better than nyc)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Salient(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(la, compare to chicago)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(la, compare to chicago) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(la, compare to chicago)