monopoly: be bad for consumers

Property	Similarity
be bad for consumers	1.00
bad for consumers	1.00
be good for consumers	0.98
be harmful to consumers	0.92
harm consumers	0.88
be harmful to american consumers	0.88
is bad for	0.76
be bad for economy	0.76

0.75

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

¬ Remarkable(monopoly, be good for consumers)

0.73

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Remarkable(monopoly, bad for consumers)

0.71

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.44

Salient(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Salient(monopoly, be good for consumers)

0.70

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.44

Salient(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

¬ Salient(monopoly, bad for consumers)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.47

Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.47

¬ Typical(monopoly, bad for consumers)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.47

Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Typical(monopoly, be good for consumers)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.47

Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(monopoly, be harmful to consumers)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.47

Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Typical(monopoly, harm consumers)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for economy)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.44

Salient(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Salient(monopoly, be bad for economy)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Plausible(monopoly, be bad for economy)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(monopoly, be harmful to american consumers)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.47

Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Typical(monopoly, is bad for)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Remarkable(monopoly, harm consumers)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(monopoly, is bad for)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(monopoly, be harmful to consumers)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.47

Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Typical(monopoly, be bad for economy)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Plausible(monopoly, be good for consumers)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Plausible(monopoly, bad for consumers)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.44

Salient(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Salient(monopoly, harm consumers)

0.46

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.44

Salient(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Salient(monopoly, is bad for)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(monopoly, is bad for)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.47

Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(monopoly, be harmful to american consumers)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.44

Salient(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Salient(monopoly, be harmful to consumers)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Plausible(monopoly, harm consumers)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Plausible(monopoly, be harmful to consumers)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.44

Salient(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Salient(monopoly, be harmful to american consumers)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Plausible(monopoly, be harmful to american consumers)

Parents	board game Weight: 0.62 , combination Weight: 0.56 , word Weight: 0.56 , title Weight: 0.54 , game Weight: 0.54
Siblings	capitalism Weight: 0.31 , taboo Weight: 0.31 , mafia Weight: 0.31 , dominion Weight: 0.30 , silence Weight: 0.30

monopoly: be bad for consumers

Related concepts

Related properties

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

Salient implies Plausible

Similarity expansion

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

Typical implies Plausible

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings