union: be bad for employees

Property	Similarity
be bad for employees	1.00
be good for employees	0.98
protect bad employees	0.92
be good for workers	0.89
protect employees	0.88
protect crappy employees	0.87
be important for workers	0.85
protect bad workers	0.85
be important for day workers	0.84
be bad for employers	0.84

0.69

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.58

Typical(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Typical(union, protect employees)

0.67

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.58

Typical(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Typical(union, be good for employees)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.76

Remarkable(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Remarkable(union, be good for employees)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.70

Salient(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Salient(union, be good for employees)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.98

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(union, be good for employees)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.76

Remarkable(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Remarkable(union, be bad for employers)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.43

¬ Plausible(union, protect employees)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.89

Evidence: 0.76

Remarkable(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Remarkable(union, be good for workers)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.70

Salient(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Salient(union, protect employees)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.70

Salient(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Salient(union, be bad for employers)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.89

Evidence: 0.58

Typical(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(union, be good for workers)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.89

Evidence: 0.70

Salient(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Salient(union, be good for workers)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.76

Remarkable(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.96

¬ Remarkable(union, protect employees)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.89

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Plausible(union, be good for workers)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Plausible(union, be bad for employers)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.58

Typical(union, be bad for employees) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(union, be bad for employers)

Parents	city Weight: 0.61 , club Weight: 0.61 , county Weight: 0.59 , institution Weight: 0.59 , party Weight: 0.59
Siblings	labor Weight: 0.34 , labour party Weight: 0.33 , quebec city Weight: 0.33 , political party Weight: 0.33

union: be bad for employees

Related concepts

Related properties

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Salient implies Plausible

Similarity expansion

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

Typical implies Plausible