candy: is bad for

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents gift
Weight: 0.69
, refined sugar
Weight: 0.67
, item
Weight: 0.61
, snack
Weight: 0.61
Siblings milk chocolate
Weight: 0.77
, cotton candy
Weight: 0.69
, gum
Weight: 0.68
, rock candy
Weight: 0.67
, toffee
Weight: 0.61

Related properties

Property Similarity
is bad for 1.00
has quality bad 0.87
be bad for kids 0.83
be bad for children 0.82
has quality good 0.79
is awful 0.79
be bad for weight loss 0.78
look good 0.76
is bad habit 0.76
drop bad in price 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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(gift, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(candy, is bad for)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(refined sugar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(candy, is bad for)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(refined sugar, has quality bad)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(gift, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(refined sugar, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(gift, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(gum, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(milk chocolate, is awful)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(cotton candy, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(milk chocolate, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(toffee, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(refined sugar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(candy, is bad for)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(gift, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(candy, is bad for)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(toffee, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(toffee, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(milk chocolate, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(milk chocolate, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(cotton candy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(cotton candy, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(gum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(gum, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(milk chocolate, is awful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(milk chocolate, is awful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(candy, is bad for)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(candy, has quality bad)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(candy, has quality bad)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(candy, has quality bad)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(candy, be bad for children)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Salient(candy, be bad for children)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Plausible(candy, be bad for children)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(candy, be bad for kids)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Salient(candy, be bad for kids)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(candy, be bad for kids)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(candy, be bad for children)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(candy, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(candy, be bad for kids)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(candy, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(candy, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(candy, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(candy, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(candy, is bad for)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(refined sugar, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gift, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(gum, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(milk chocolate, is awful)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(toffee, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(milk chocolate, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(cotton candy, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(refined sugar, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
Typical(candy, is bad for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gift, has quality good)