negligence: be determined under law

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents charge
Weight: 0.65
, tort
Weight: 0.63
, cause
Weight: 0.63
, failure
Weight: 0.61
Siblings manslaughter
Weight: 0.34
, child neglect
Weight: 0.34
, heart failure
Weight: 0.33
, ignorance
Weight: 0.33
, respiratory failure
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be determined under law 1.00
be determined under common law 0.95
be determined under law in workplace 0.92
be determined under common law in workplace 0.90
is law 0.83
has state rule 0.76
is statute 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(tort, is law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(tort, is law)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(tort, is law)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(tort, is law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under law)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under law)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under law in workplace)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under common law in workplace)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under common law)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(negligence, has state rule)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Salient(negligence, has state rule)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(negligence, has state rule)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(negligence, has state rule)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(negligence, is statute)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(negligence, is statute)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(negligence, is statute)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(negligence, is statute)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Salient(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(tort, is law)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(negligence, be determined under law) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(tort, is law)