lobbyist: have bad reputation

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents individual
Weight: 0.58
, member
Weight: 0.54
, group
Weight: 0.53
, law firm
Weight: 0.53
, advocate
Weight: 0.53
Siblings family member
Weight: 0.32
, representative
Weight: 0.32
, chairman
Weight: 0.32
, accounting firm
Weight: 0.31
, taxpayer
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad reputation 1.00
have reputation 0.97
has quality bad 0.81
has quality good 0.77
have image 0.75
have negative image 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(law firm, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(group, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(law firm, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(group, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(law firm, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(group, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(law firm, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(group, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(lobbyist, have bad reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(lobbyist, have reputation)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(lobbyist, have reputation)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have reputation)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(lobbyist, have reputation)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(lobbyist, have image)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(lobbyist, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(lobbyist, have image)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(lobbyist, have image)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(lobbyist, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(lobbyist, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(lobbyist, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(lobbyist, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(lobbyist, have negative image)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(lobbyist, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(lobbyist, have negative image)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have negative image)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(lobbyist, have negative image)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have image)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(group, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(law firm, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(group, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(lobbyist, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(law firm, has quality bad)