bad food: is quality

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
is quality	1.00
has quality good	0.91

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.60

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.98

Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.12

¬ Typical(bad food, is quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.00

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.02
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Plausible(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.51

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.99

¬ Remarkable(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Remarkable(junk food, is quality)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality good)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(chocolate milk, has quality good)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Remarkable(donut, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.98

Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.03

Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.01

¬ Plausible(bad food, is quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

Remarkable(junk food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(junk food, is quality)

0.40

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

Remarkable(donut, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Plausible(donut, has quality good)

0.39

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

Remarkable(chocolate milk, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Plausible(chocolate milk, has quality good)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

Remarkable(junk food, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.01

¬ Salient(bad food, is quality)

Similarity expansion

0.77

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.00

¬ Plausible(bad food, has quality good)

0.77

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.01

Salient(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.00

¬ Salient(bad food, has quality good)

0.77

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.00

¬ Remarkable(bad food, has quality good)

0.71

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.12

Typical(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Typical(bad food, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.01

Salient(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.12

¬ Typical(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.01

Plausible(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.12

¬ Typical(bad food, is quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.45

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 1.00

¬ Typical(food, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(junk food, is quality)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Typical(donut, has quality good)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Typical(junk food, has quality good)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Remarkable(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Typical(chocolate milk, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.06

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.13
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.12

Typical(bad food, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 1.00

¬ Typical(food, has quality good)