cctv: has quality disadvantage

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents system
Weight: 0.63
, security system
Weight: 0.62
, television station
Weight: 0.56
, camera
Weight: 0.54
, technology
Weight: 0.54
Siblings digital camera
Weight: 0.34
, camera lens
Weight: 0.33
, security guard
Weight: 0.33
, computer hardware
Weight: 0.32
, radio station
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality disadvantage 1.00
has quality better 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

0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality disadvantage)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality disadvantage)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality disadvantage)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality disadvantage)

Similarity expansion

0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality better)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(cctv, has quality better)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(cctv, has quality better)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality better)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality disadvantage)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(cctv, has quality disadvantage)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(technology, has quality disadvantage)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Typical(cctv, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(technology, has quality disadvantage)