public speaking: was important in ancient rome

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents topic
Weight: 0.68
, subject
Weight: 0.67
, course
Weight: 0.63
, function
Weight: 0.63
, thing
Weight: 0.63
Siblings speaking
Weight: 0.37
, talking
Weight: 0.34
, meeting
Weight: 0.33
, forum
Weight: 0.33
, talk show
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
was important in ancient rome 1.00
was important in rome 0.92

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

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(speaking, was important in ancient rome)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(speaking, was important in rome)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(speaking, was important in ancient rome)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(speaking, was important in rome)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(speaking, was important in rome)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Salient(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(public speaking, was important in rome)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(public speaking, was important in rome)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(public speaking, was important in rome)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.35
Salient(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(public speaking, was important in rome)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Salient(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(speaking, was important in ancient rome)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(public speaking, was important in ancient rome)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(speaking, was important in rome)