cad: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents work
Weight: 0.55
, application
Weight: 0.53
, computer program
Weight: 0.51
, computer
Weight: 0.50
, word
Weight: 0.48
Siblings asshole
Weight: 0.31
, computer programmer
Weight: 0.30
, whore
Weight: 0.30
, computer game
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality worth 0.82

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

0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(word, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cad, has quality bad)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(computer program, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cad, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(computer program, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cad, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(work, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cad, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(computer program, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(word, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(work, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(computer program, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(computer program, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(word, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(computer program, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(work, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(computer game, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(computer game, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(word, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cad, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(computer program, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cad, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(computer program, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cad, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(work, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cad, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(computer game, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(computer game, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(computer game, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(computer game, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(cad, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(cad, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(cad, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(cad, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(cad, has quality worth)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(cad, has quality worth)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(cad, has quality worth)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality worth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cad, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(work, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(computer program, has quality bad)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(word, has quality bad)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(computer program, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(computer game, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(computer game, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(computer program, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(word, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(work, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(cad, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(computer program, has quality good)