option: is more likely

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents solution
Weight: 0.64
, consideration
Weight: 0.63
, factor
Weight: 0.61
, exchange
Weight: 0.60
Siblings stock option
Weight: 0.85
, lock
Weight: 0.68
, method
Weight: 0.65
, pay
Weight: 0.64
, time zone
Weight: 0.63

Related properties

Property Similarity
is more likely 1.00
is likely 0.95
be used more 0.79
is used more 0.79
has state less 0.78

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(lock, be used more)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(pay, has state less)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(method, is used more)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(method, is used more) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(method, is used more)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(pay, has state less) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(pay, has state less)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(lock, be used more) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(lock, be used more)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(option, is more likely)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(option, is likely)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(option, is likely)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(option, is likely)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(option, is likely)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(option, is more likely)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(option, is more likely)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(pay, has state less)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(method, is used more)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(option, is more likely) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(lock, be used more)