pornstar: have bad style

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents girl
Weight: 0.52
, model
Weight: 0.39
, stripper
Weight: 0.34
, star
Weight: 0.33
Siblings whore
Weight: 0.32
, chick
Weight: 0.32
, alice
Weight: 0.31
, betty
Weight: 0.31
, girl scout
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad style 1.00
has physical part style 0.88

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

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(pornstar, have bad style)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(pornstar, has physical part style)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(pornstar, has physical part style)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(pornstar, has physical part style)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(pornstar, has physical part style)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(pornstar, have bad style)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(pornstar, have bad style) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(pornstar, have bad style)