betting: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents activity
Weight: 0.53
, bet
Weight: 0.41
, game
Weight: 0.36
, gambling
Weight: 0.35
, application
Weight: 0.34
Siblings poker
Weight: 0.31
, business activity
Weight: 0.31
, playing sport
Weight: 0.30
, lottery
Weight: 0.30
, buying
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality wrong 0.87

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

0.64
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(game, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(game, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(bet, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(gambling, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(bet, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(gambling, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(gambling, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(gambling, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(bet, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(game, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(bet, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(gambling, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(game, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(gambling, has quality wrong)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(bet, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(game, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(gambling, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(bet, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(gambling, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(gambling, has quality wrong)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(game, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(poker, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(buying, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(lottery, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(lottery, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(game, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(bet, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(game, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(gambling, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(gambling, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(bet, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(gambling, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(lottery, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(lottery, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(lottery, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(lottery, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(poker, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(poker, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(buying, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(buying, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(betting, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(betting, has quality good)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(betting, has quality wrong)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(betting, has quality wrong)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(betting, has quality wrong)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality wrong)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(betting, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(gambling, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(bet, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(gambling, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(gambling, has quality wrong)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(bet, has quality bad)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(game, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(game, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(lottery, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(lottery, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(poker, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(buying, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(gambling, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(bet, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(game, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(bet, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(gambling, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(game, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(betting, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(gambling, has quality wrong)