technician: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents nurse
Weight: 0.67
, person
Weight: 0.61
, job
Weight: 0.61
, employee
Weight: 0.60
Siblings installer
Weight: 0.59
, supervisor
Weight: 0.35
, engineer
Weight: 0.35
, salesman
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(supervisor, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(supervisor, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(technician, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(technician, has quality bad)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(technician, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(technician, has quality bad)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(technician, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(technician, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(technician, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(technician, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(supervisor, has quality good)