receptionist: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents employee
Weight: 0.69
, woman
Weight: 0.69
, position
Weight: 0.58
, job
Weight: 0.57
, person
Weight: 0.57
Siblings waitress
Weight: 0.36
, salesperson
Weight: 0.36
, waiter
Weight: 0.35
, pregnant woman
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality questions 0.75

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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(salesperson, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(waiter, has quality questions)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(salesperson, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(salesperson, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(waiter, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(waiter, has quality questions)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(receptionist, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(receptionist, has quality questions)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(receptionist, has quality questions)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(receptionist, has quality questions)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, has quality questions)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(receptionist, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(salesperson, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(waiter, has quality questions)