cannibal: is quality

Related concepts

Parents	danger Weight: 0.52 , band Weight: 0.51 , journal Weight: 0.50 , creature Weight: 0.43 , thing Weight: 0.41
Siblings	werewolf Weight: 0.31 , lizard Weight: 0.31 , crocodile Weight: 0.31 , cockroach Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property	Similarity
is quality	1.00
has quality good	0.91
has quality use	0.90
has quality bad	0.87

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.54

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.79

Plausible(journal, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Typical(cannibal, is quality)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Typical(cannibal, is quality)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(band, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Typical(cannibal, is quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Plausible(band, has quality bad)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Plausible(band, has quality good)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Plausible(journal, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.29

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Remarkable(band, has quality bad)

0.22

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(journal, has quality good)

0.18

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(band, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Remarkable(cockroach, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.79

Plausible(journal, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(cannibal, is quality)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

Plausible(band, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(cannibal, is quality)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(band, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(cannibal, is quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

Remarkable(cockroach, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Plausible(cockroach, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Salient(cannibal, is quality)

Similarity expansion

0.68

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.85

Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality good)

0.67

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.85

Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality use)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.85

Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, has quality bad)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.81

Salient(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Salient(cannibal, has quality use)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.81

Salient(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Salient(cannibal, has quality good)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.81

Salient(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Salient(cannibal, has quality bad)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality use)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.52

Typical(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality use)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality bad)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Plausible(cannibal, has quality good)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.52

Typical(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality bad)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.52

Typical(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Typical(cannibal, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.81

Salient(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Typical(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

Plausible(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Typical(cannibal, is quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Typical(band, has quality bad)

0.20

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Typical(band, has quality good)

0.14

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(journal, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.02

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Typical(cockroach, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.52

Typical(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Typical(band, has quality bad)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.52

Typical(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Typical(band, has quality good)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.52

Typical(cannibal, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(journal, has quality good)