restaurant: have menus

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents food chain
Weight: 0.69
, grocery store
Weight: 0.68
, food store
Weight: 0.67
, institution
Weight: 0.64
Siblings italian restaurant
Weight: 0.87
, seafood restaurant
Weight: 0.81
, steakhouse
Weight: 0.80
, fast food restaurant
Weight: 0.80
, chinese restaurant
Weight: 0.77

Related properties

Property Similarity
have menus 1.00
be with menus 0.99
be with menus considered 0.97
have hidden menus 0.93
give kids menus 0.93
be with french menus 0.93
have secret menus 0.92
be with french menus considered 0.91
have menu 0.91
have same menu 0.89

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

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, have secret menus)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(chinese restaurant, have same menu)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.14
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, have menus)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(chinese restaurant, have menu)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, have menus)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(chinese restaurant, have menu) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(chinese restaurant, have menu)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(chinese restaurant, have same menu) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(chinese restaurant, have same menu)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, have secret menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, have secret menus)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(restaurant, have menus)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(restaurant, have menu)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have secret menus)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menu)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(restaurant, have menu)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(restaurant, have menu)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(restaurant, have secret menus)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(restaurant, have secret menus)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(restaurant, have secret menus)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(restaurant, have menus)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, have menus)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(chinese restaurant, have menu)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(chinese restaurant, have same menu)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(restaurant, have menus) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, have secret menus)