partner: be previous relationships

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents family member
Weight: 0.71
, attorney
Weight: 0.65
, manager
Weight: 0.63
, user
Weight: 0.58
Siblings law firm
Weight: 0.68
, owner
Weight: 0.67
, representative
Weight: 0.65
, employee
Weight: 0.65
, spouse
Weight: 0.64

Related properties

Property Similarity
be previous relationships 1.00
has state relationships 0.87
change relationships 0.85
stay in relationships 0.84
change existing relationships 0.83
stay in abusive relationships 0.79
cheat in relationship 0.77

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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(spouse, stay in abusive relationships)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(spouse, stay in relationships)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(spouse, stay in relationships)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(spouse, stay in relationships)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(spouse, stay in abusive relationships)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(spouse, stay in abusive relationships)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(partner, be previous relationships)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(partner, has state relationships)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(partner, has state relationships)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(partner, stay in relationships)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(partner, change relationships)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(partner, change relationships)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(partner, stay in relationships)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(partner, stay in relationships)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(partner, change relationships)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(partner, has state relationships)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(partner, change existing relationships)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Salient(partner, change existing relationships)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(partner, change existing relationships)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Salient(partner, stay in abusive relationships)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Plausible(partner, stay in abusive relationships)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(partner, stay in abusive relationships)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(partner, stay in abusive relationships)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Salient(partner, cheat in relationship)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(partner, cheat in relationship)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(partner, cheat in relationship)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(partner, cheat in relationship)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(partner, change existing relationships)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(partner, has state relationships)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(partner, change relationships)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(partner, stay in relationships)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(partner, be previous relationships)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(spouse, stay in relationships)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(partner, be previous relationships)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(spouse, stay in abusive relationships)