professional: deal with ethics issues on plagiarism

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents graduate student
Weight: 0.61
, customer
Weight: 0.58
, third party
Weight: 0.56
, expert
Weight: 0.55
Siblings staff
Weight: 0.67
, team
Weight: 0.65
, realtor
Weight: 0.64
, entrepreneur
Weight: 0.62
, counselor
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
deal with ethics issues on plagiarism 1.00
deal with ethical issues of plagiarism 0.97
deal with ethics issues 0.91
is ethics 0.86
deal with ethical issues 0.85
have code of ethics 0.82
need code of ethics 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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(counselor, have code of ethics)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(counselor, have code of ethics) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(counselor, have code of ethics)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(professional, is ethics)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(professional, deal with ethical issues of plagiarism)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(professional, need code of ethics)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(professional, have code of ethics)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(professional, is ethics)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(professional, deal with ethical issues of plagiarism)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(professional, deal with ethical issues)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(professional, deal with ethical issues of plagiarism)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Salient(professional, deal with ethical issues of plagiarism)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(professional, need code of ethics)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(professional, have code of ethics)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(professional, deal with ethical issues)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(professional, is ethics)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(professional, deal with ethical issues)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(professional, need code of ethics)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(professional, deal with ethical issues)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(professional, have code of ethics)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(professional, have code of ethics)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(professional, is ethics)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(professional, need code of ethics)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(professional, deal with ethics issues on plagiarism) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(counselor, have code of ethics)