alarm clock: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents clock
Weight: 0.71
, alarm
Weight: 0.70
, electronic device
Weight: 0.67
, noise
Weight: 0.67
, device
Weight: 0.66
Siblings fire alarm
Weight: 0.40
, smoke alarm
Weight: 0.38
, atomic clock
Weight: 0.38
, car alarm
Weight: 0.37
, computer monitor
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
has quality wrong 0.87
has quality change 0.86
has quality joke 0.80
is terrible 0.77
has quality jokes 0.75

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(noise, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(noise, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(noise, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(atomic clock, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(atomic clock, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(atomic clock, has quality wrong)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(noise, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(atomic clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(atomic clock, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(atomic clock, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(atomic clock, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(computer monitor, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, is quality)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(atomic clock, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(atomic clock, has quality wrong)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(alarm clock, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Salient(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(noise, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(atomic clock, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(atomic clock, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(atomic clock, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(computer monitor, is quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(noise, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(alarm clock, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)