owner: be excluded from workers comp

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents partner
Weight: 0.67
, manager
Weight: 0.65
, member
Weight: 0.65
, client
Weight: 0.63
Siblings proprietor
Weight: 0.63
, shareholder
Weight: 0.62
, breeder
Weight: 0.53
, cuban
Weight: 0.47
, mara
Weight: 0.40

Related properties

Property Similarity
be excluded from workers comp 1.00
be excluded from workers 0.91
be have employees 0.75
be different from employees 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

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(proprietor, be have employees)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(proprietor, be have employees) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(proprietor, be have employees)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(owner, be excluded from workers comp)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(owner, be excluded from workers)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(owner, be excluded from workers)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(owner, be excluded from workers)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(owner, be excluded from workers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(owner, be excluded from workers comp)

Typical implies Plausible

0.48
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Plausible(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(owner, be excluded from workers comp)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(owner, be excluded from workers comp) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(proprietor, be have employees)