segregation: was practiced in southern states

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents evil
Weight: 0.61
, policy
Weight: 0.60
, problem
Weight: 0.59
, issue
Weight: 0.59
, topic
Weight: 0.56
Siblings slavery
Weight: 0.34
, inequality
Weight: 0.34
, apartheid
Weight: 0.34
, bigotry
Weight: 0.34
, assimilation
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
was practiced in southern states 1.00
was practiced in states 0.95
was practiced in middle 0.86
was practiced in middle of century 0.83
was practiced in middle of 20th century 0.83
was practiced despite passage 0.80
was practiced despite passage following war 0.79
was practiced despite passage following civil war 0.78
was enforced in south 0.78
was practiced despite passage of amendments following civil war 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

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced in states)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced in states)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced in middle)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced in states)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced in middle of century)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced in middle)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced in middle of century)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced in middle)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced despite passage)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced in middle of century)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced in middle of 20th century)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(segregation, was enforced in south)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in middle of century)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced despite passage following war)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in states)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced despite passage following civil war)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced in middle of 20th century)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced in middle of 20th century)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in middle of 20th century)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced despite passage of amendments following civil war)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced despite passage)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced despite passage following war)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in middle)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced despite passage following civil war)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced despite passage)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced despite passage following war)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(segregation, was enforced in south)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced despite passage following civil war)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(segregation, was enforced in south)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(segregation, was practiced despite passage of amendments following civil war)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(segregation, was practiced despite passage of amendments following civil war)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced despite passage)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced despite passage of amendments following civil war)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced despite passage following civil war)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced despite passage following war)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was enforced in south)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(segregation, was practiced in southern states)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(segregation, was practiced in southern states)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(segregation, was practiced in southern states)