prom: has quality worth

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents event
Weight: 0.66
, high school
Weight: 0.64
, thing
Weight: 0.59
, night
Weight: 0.53
, party
Weight: 0.52
Siblings school district
Weight: 0.35
, wedding reception
Weight: 0.35
, reunion
Weight: 0.34
, dinner
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality worth 1.00
has quality good 0.85

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

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(school district, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(dinner, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(reunion, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(reunion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(reunion, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(dinner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(dinner, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(school district, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(school district, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(prom, has quality worth)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(prom, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(prom, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.31
Typical(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(prom, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality worth)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(prom, has quality worth)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(reunion, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(dinner, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(prom, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(school district, has quality good)