waiter: questions

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents employee
Weight: 0.69
, man
Weight: 0.64
, worker
Weight: 0.63
, job
Weight: 0.62
, restaurant
Weight: 0.59
Siblings bartender
Weight: 0.36
, italian restaurant
Weight: 0.36
, receptionist
Weight: 0.35
, policeman
Weight: 0.35
, seafood restaurant
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
questions 1.00
has quality questions 0.92

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

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, has quality questions)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(receptionist, questions)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(receptionist, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(receptionist, questions)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(receptionist, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(receptionist, has quality questions)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(waiter, questions)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(waiter, has quality questions)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(waiter, has quality questions)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(waiter, has quality questions)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(waiter, has quality questions)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Salient(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(waiter, questions)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(waiter, questions)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(receptionist, questions)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(waiter, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(receptionist, has quality questions)