slave: were treated in china

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents african
Weight: 0.61
, character
Weight: 0.58
, act
Weight: 0.58
, device
Weight: 0.57
Siblings bondage
Weight: 0.60
, servant
Weight: 0.59
, frederick douglass
Weight: 0.58
, serf
Weight: 0.52
, equal
Weight: 0.48

Related properties

Property Similarity
were treated in china 1.00
were treated in caribbeans 1800 0.86
were treated in 1800s 0.86
were treated in 1789-1797 0.86
were treated in 1600s 0.86
were treated in 1700 0.86
were treated in 1860 0.86
were treated 0.86
were treated in victorian times 0.85
were treated good 0.85

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

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(servant, were treated)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(servant, were treated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(servant, were treated)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(slave, were treated in china)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(slave, were treated in 1860)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(slave, were treated)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(slave, were treated)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(slave, were treated)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(slave, were treated)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(slave, were treated in 1860)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(slave, were treated in 1860)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(slave, were treated in 1860)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(slave, were treated in china)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(slave, were treated in china)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(slave, were treated in china) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(servant, were treated)