lawyer: use technology

from Quasimodo
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
, barrister
Weight: 0.59
, solicitor
Weight: 0.58
, marshall
Weight: 0.56
, john marshall
Weight: 0.56

Related properties

Property Similarity
use technology 1.00
use cheques 0.82
use 0.82
use computers 0.76

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

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(solicitor, use cheques)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(investigator, use)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(investigator, use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(investigator, use)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(solicitor, use cheques) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(solicitor, use cheques)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(lawyer, use technology)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, use computers)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Salient(lawyer, use computers)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(lawyer, use computers)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(lawyer, use computers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, use technology)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Plausible(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(lawyer, use technology)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(investigator, use)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(lawyer, use technology) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(solicitor, use cheques)