recruiter: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents member
Weight: 0.62
, person
Weight: 0.58
, topic
Weight: 0.57
, employee
Weight: 0.52
, thing
Weight: 0.52
Siblings staff sergeant
Weight: 0.51
, salesperson
Weight: 0.33
, counselor
Weight: 0.33
, family member
Weight: 0.33
, representative
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
have bad reputation 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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(salesperson, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(salesperson, have bad reputation)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(counselor, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(counselor, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(counselor, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(salesperson, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(salesperson, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(salesperson, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(salesperson, have bad reputation)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(recruiter, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(recruiter, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(recruiter, have bad reputation)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, have bad reputation)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(recruiter, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(recruiter, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(recruiter, have bad reputation)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(recruiter, have bad reputation)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(recruiter, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(salesperson, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(counselor, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(salesperson, have bad reputation)