tennessee: was named

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents school
Weight: 0.64
, florida
Weight: 0.61
, place
Weight: 0.59
, program
Weight: 0.59
, area
Weight: 0.59
Siblings georgia
Weight: 0.36
, missouri
Weight: 0.36
, oklahoma
Weight: 0.36
, kentucky
Weight: 0.36
, california
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
was named 1.00
was named after 0.95
was called state 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(florida, was named)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(tennessee, was named)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(florida, was named)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(florida, was named)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(missouri, was named)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(california, was named)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(florida, was named)
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(tennessee, was named)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(california, was named)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(california, was named)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(missouri, was named)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(missouri, was named)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Salient(tennessee, was named)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named after)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was called state)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.37
Salient(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(tennessee, was called state)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(tennessee, was called state)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(tennessee, was named after)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(tennessee, was named after)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.37
Salient(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(tennessee, was named after)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(tennessee, was called state)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Salient(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(tennessee, was named)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(florida, was named)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(missouri, was named)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(california, was named)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Typical(tennessee, was named)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(florida, was named)