stone: castles hard to attack

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents artifact
Weight: 0.63
, substance
Weight: 0.59
, vessel
Weight: 0.58
, medium
Weight: 0.58
, garden
Weight: 0.57
Siblings concrete
Weight: 0.60
, stele
Weight: 0.36
, vegetable garden
Weight: 0.32
, pottery
Weight: 0.32
, coin
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
castles hard to attack 1.00
were good castles 0.92
were keep castles attacked 0.91
were castles better than motte bailey castles 0.89
were castles better than motten bailey ones 0.86
building norman castle 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

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Salient(stone, castles hard to attack)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(stone, were castles better than motten bailey ones)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(stone, were castles better than motte bailey castles)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.39
Salient(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Salient(stone, were castles better than motten bailey ones)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(stone, were castles better than motten bailey ones)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(stone, were castles better than motten bailey ones)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(stone, were castles better than motte bailey castles)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(stone, were castles better than motte bailey castles)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.39
Salient(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(stone, were castles better than motte bailey castles)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Salient(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(stone, castles hard to attack)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(stone, castles hard to attack) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(stone, castles hard to attack)