recruiter: have reputation

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
have reputation 1.00
have bad reputation 0.97

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(salesperson, have bad reputation)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(salesperson, have reputation)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(salesperson, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(salesperson, have reputation)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(salesperson, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(salesperson, have bad reputation)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(recruiter, have reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, have bad reputation)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(recruiter, have bad reputation)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(recruiter, have bad reputation)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.29
Typical(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(recruiter, have bad reputation)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, have reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(recruiter, have reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(salesperson, have reputation)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(recruiter, have reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(salesperson, have bad reputation)