samsung: is successful business

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mobile phone
Weight: 0.68
, player
Weight: 0.63
, client
Weight: 0.62
, name
Weight: 0.60
Siblings iphone
Weight: 0.68
, nokia
Weight: 0.38
, motorola
Weight: 0.36
, dvd player
Weight: 0.36
, smartphone
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
is successful business 1.00
is successful 0.92
is good company 0.77

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(motorola, is successful)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(motorola, is successful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(motorola, is successful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(samsung, is successful business)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(samsung, is successful)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(samsung, is successful)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(samsung, is successful)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(samsung, is good company)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(samsung, is good company)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(samsung, is good company)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(samsung, is successful)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(samsung, is good company)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Salient(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(samsung, is successful business)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(samsung, is successful business)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(samsung, is successful business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(motorola, is successful)