meat: be more satiating than vegetarian food

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents dairy product
Weight: 0.65
, frozen food
Weight: 0.65
, food
Weight: 0.65
, fast food
Weight: 0.63
, raw material
Weight: 0.63
Siblings lunch meat
Weight: 0.80
, hamburger
Weight: 0.72
, lamb
Weight: 0.71
, beef
Weight: 0.69
, chicken
Weight: 0.68

Related properties

Property Similarity
be more satiating than vegetarian food 1.00
be tastier than vegetables 0.80
be more expensive than meat 0.78
be more dangerous than raw vegetables 0.77
be more expensive than dark meat 0.77
be more expensive than vegetables 0.76
be harder than other meats 0.76
be more filling than vegetables 0.76
be harder than meats 0.75
be more expensive than plant food 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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(lamb, be more expensive than meat)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(lamb, be more expensive than meat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(lamb, be more expensive than meat)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Salient(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(meat, be tastier than vegetables)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(meat, be tastier than vegetables)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.30
Salient(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Salient(meat, be tastier than vegetables)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(meat, be more expensive than vegetables)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(meat, be more expensive than vegetables)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.30
Salient(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Salient(meat, be more expensive than vegetables)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(meat, be more filling than vegetables)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.30
Salient(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Salient(meat, be more filling than vegetables)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(meat, be more filling than vegetables)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(meat, be tastier than vegetables)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(meat, be more filling than vegetables)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(meat, be more expensive than vegetables)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.30
Salient(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Salient(meat, be more expensive than plant food)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(meat, be more expensive than plant food)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(meat, be more expensive than plant food)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(meat, be more expensive than plant food)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Salient(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(meat, be more satiating than vegetarian food) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(lamb, be more expensive than meat)