breeder: has quality questions

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents animal
Weight: 0.66
, person
Weight: 0.56
, man
Weight: 0.55
Siblings guinea pig
Weight: 0.35
, alpaca
Weight: 0.35
, llama
Weight: 0.35
, horse
Weight: 0.35
, prairie dog
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality questions 1.00
has quality good 0.76
has quality bad 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(alpaca, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(prairie dog, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(alpaca, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(guinea pig, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(alpaca, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(alpaca, has quality questions)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(guinea pig, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(guinea pig, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(alpaca, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(alpaca, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(prairie dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(prairie dog, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(breeder, has quality questions)

Similarity expansion

0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(breeder, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(breeder, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(breeder, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(breeder, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(breeder, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(breeder, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(breeder, has quality questions)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(alpaca, has quality questions)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(guinea pig, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(alpaca, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(breeder, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(prairie dog, has quality bad)