real estate agent: have bad reputation

Related concepts

Parents	real estate Weight: 0.73 , client Weight: 0.67 , business people Weight: 0.67 , individual Weight: 0.64
Siblings	appraiser Weight: 0.60 , condo Weight: 0.35 , townhouse Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property	Similarity
have bad reputation	1.00
have reputation	0.97
has quality bad	0.81
has quality good	0.77

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.49

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.61

Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

¬ Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.69

Plausible(real estate, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

¬ Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Plausible(client, has quality bad)

0.02

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Plausible(real estate, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.45

¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(real estate, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.28

¬ Remarkable(condo, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.61

Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.04

¬ Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.69

Plausible(real estate, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.04

¬ Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.33

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.28

Remarkable(condo, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.45

¬ Plausible(condo, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Salient(real estate agent, have bad reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.82

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.24

Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.01

¬ Typical(real estate agent, have reputation)

0.68

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Plausible(real estate agent, have reputation)

0.45

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.05

Salient(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Salient(real estate agent, have reputation)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.06
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.05

Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.99

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have reputation)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.05

Salient(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

¬ Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

¬ Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.40

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Typical(client, has quality bad)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Typical(real estate, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(condo, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.19

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.24

Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Typical(real estate, has quality good)

0.18

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.24

Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Typical(client, has quality bad)