bad food: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.67
, problem
Weight: 0.57
, issue
Weight: 0.54
, food
Weight: 0.54
Siblings junk food
Weight: 0.81
, chocolate milk
Weight: 0.72
, donut
Weight: 0.55
, pet food
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
is quality 0.91
taste good 0.79

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

0.66
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(bad food, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.00
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.02
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.57
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(chocolate milk, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(donut, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(junk food, is quality)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(donut, taste good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(chocolate milk, taste good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(bad food, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(junk food, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(junk food, is quality)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(donut, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(donut, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(chocolate milk, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(chocolate milk, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(junk food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(chocolate milk, taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(chocolate milk, taste good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(donut, taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(donut, taste good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Salient(bad food, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(bad food, is quality)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.00
Salient(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(bad food, is quality)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.00
Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(bad food, is quality)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(bad food, taste good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
Salient(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Salient(bad food, taste good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(bad food, taste good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(bad food, taste good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Salient(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(bad food, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.51
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(donut, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(chocolate milk, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(junk food, is quality)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(donut, taste good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(chocolate milk, taste good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.10
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
Typical(bad food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)