tan: is more attractive

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.61
, color
Weight: 0.60
, tone
Weight: 0.47
, brown
Weight: 0.46
Siblings hair color
Weight: 0.36
, burgundy
Weight: 0.36
, turquoise
Weight: 0.35
, suntan lotion
Weight: 0.35
, gray
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
is more attractive 1.00
is attractive 0.96
be considered attractive 0.92
more is recommended than icln for etfs 0.76

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: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(tan, is more attractive)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(tan, is attractive)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(tan, be considered attractive)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(tan, is attractive)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(tan, is attractive)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(tan, be considered attractive)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(tan, be considered attractive)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(tan, more is recommended than icln for etfs)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(tan, more is recommended than icln for etfs)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(tan, more is recommended than icln for etfs)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(tan, is attractive)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(tan, be considered attractive)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(tan, more is recommended than icln for etfs)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(tan, is more attractive)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(tan, is more attractive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(tan, is more attractive)