brush: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents utensil
Weight: 0.59
, tool
Weight: 0.58
, obstacle
Weight: 0.57
, cover
Weight: 0.56
Siblings toilet brush
Weight: 0.79
, wooden spoon
Weight: 0.33
, spoon
Weight: 0.33
, razor blade
Weight: 0.33
, cooking utensil
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
has quality use 0.88
has quality worth 0.85
is great 0.81
be bad for environment 0.77
is best 0.76

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

0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(utensil, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(utensil, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(tool, is great) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(tool, is best) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(utensil, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(utensil, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(utensil, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(utensil, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(utensil, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(utensil, has quality use)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality worth)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(utensil, has quality worth)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(tool, is great)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(utensil, be bad for environment)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(tool, is best)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(utensil, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(utensil, be bad for environment)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(utensil, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(tool, is great)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(tool, is best)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(utensil, has quality use)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(utensil, has quality worth)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(wooden spoon, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(spoon, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(razor blade, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(spoon, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality use)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(utensil, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(utensil, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(utensil, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(tool, is great) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(utensil, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(tool, is best) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(utensil, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(spoon, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(spoon, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(wooden spoon, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(wooden spoon, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(spoon, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(spoon, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(razor blade, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(razor blade, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality use)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(brush, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(brush, has quality better)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(brush, has quality better)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(brush, has quality better)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality better)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(brush, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality use)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality worth)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(utensil, be bad for environment)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(tool, is great)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(tool, is best)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality use)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(wooden spoon, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(spoon, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(spoon, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(razor blade, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality use)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(utensil, has quality worth)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(tool, is great)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(utensil, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(brush, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(tool, is best)