mall: be on decline

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents shopping center
Weight: 0.74
, location
Weight: 0.67
, area
Weight: 0.62
, real estate
Weight: 0.60
Siblings shopping mall
Weight: 0.40
, department store
Weight: 0.38
, convenience store
Weight: 0.37
, food store
Weight: 0.36
, plaza
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
be on decline 1.00
be in decline 0.99
decline in popularity 0.85
close consumption is rising 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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(shopping mall, decline in popularity)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(shopping mall, decline in popularity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(shopping mall, decline in popularity)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(mall, be on decline)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(mall, be in decline)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(mall, be in decline)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(mall, be in decline)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.99
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(mall, be in decline)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(mall, close consumption is rising)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(mall, close consumption is rising)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(mall, close consumption is rising)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(mall, close consumption is rising)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Salient(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(mall, be on decline)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(mall, be on decline)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(mall, be on decline) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(shopping mall, decline in popularity)