village: were isolated

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents town
Weight: 0.76
, municipality
Weight: 0.68
, area
Weight: 0.66
, settlement
Weight: 0.59
Siblings community
Weight: 0.69
, hamlet
Weight: 0.66
, carmel
Weight: 0.58
, rome
Weight: 0.58
, countryside
Weight: 0.55

Related properties

Property Similarity
were isolated 1.00
were organised in samoa 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

0.63
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(settlement, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(village, were isolated)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(settlement, were isolated)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(settlement, were isolated)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(settlement, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(village, were isolated)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Salient(village, were isolated)

Similarity expansion

0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(village, were organised in samoa)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(village, were organised in samoa)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(village, were organised in samoa)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.38
Salient(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(village, were organised in samoa)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
Salient(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(village, were isolated)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(village, were isolated)

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: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(settlement, were isolated)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(village, were isolated) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(settlement, were isolated)