paradox: be effective in literature

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.56
, thing
Weight: 0.56
, term
Weight: 0.55
, topic
Weight: 0.55
Siblings liar
Weight: 0.50
, irony
Weight: 0.35
, duality
Weight: 0.34
, contradiction
Weight: 0.33
, dilemma
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be effective in literature 1.00
be important in literature 0.92
be used in literature 0.91
is effective 0.81

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

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(irony, be important in literature)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(duality, be used in literature)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(irony, is effective)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(irony, be important in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(irony, be important in literature)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(irony, is effective) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(irony, is effective)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(duality, be used in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(duality, be used in literature)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(paradox, be effective in literature)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(paradox, is effective)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.20
Salient(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Salient(paradox, be used in literature)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(paradox, is effective)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.30
Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be important in literature)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.30
Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be used in literature)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(paradox, be used in literature)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(paradox, be used in literature)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.20
Salient(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Salient(paradox, is effective)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.20
Salient(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(paradox, be important in literature)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(paradox, be important in literature)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.23
Typical(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(paradox, be important in literature)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.30
Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(paradox, is effective)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Salient(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(paradox, be effective in literature)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(irony, be important in literature)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(irony, is effective)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(paradox, be effective in literature) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(duality, be used in literature)