lawyer: object that statement

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents activist
Weight: 0.71
, expert
Weight: 0.69
, specialist
Weight: 0.66
, defendant
Weight: 0.66
Siblings investigator
Weight: 0.65
, solicitor
Weight: 0.58
, arbitrator
Weight: 0.54
, fisher
Weight: 0.54
, judge
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
object that statement 1.00
object to statement 0.99
object to comment 0.77
object to verdict 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(judge, object to verdict)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(judge, object to verdict)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(judge, object to verdict)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(lawyer, object that statement)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(lawyer, object to statement)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(lawyer, object to statement)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(lawyer, object to statement)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(lawyer, object to comment)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, object to statement)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(lawyer, object to comment)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, object to comment)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.27
Typical(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(lawyer, object to comment)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, object that statement)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(lawyer, object that statement)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, object that statement)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(judge, object to verdict)