chemicals: be in food bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents industry
Weight: 0.56
, company
Weight: 0.56
, manufacturer
Weight: 0.48
, business
Weight: 0.48
, sector
Weight: 0.41
Siblings chemical plant
Weight: 0.33
, oil company
Weight: 0.32
, automobile industry
Weight: 0.32
, software company
Weight: 0.32
, packaging
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in food bad 1.00
be in food 0.92
be used in food 0.89
be used on food 0.88
be added to food 0.84
has quality bad 0.80
be bad for environment 0.78

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(oil company, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(oil company, be bad for environment)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(oil company, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(oil company, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(oil company, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(oil company, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(software company, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(software company, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(chemicals, be in food)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(chemicals, be in food)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(chemicals, be used on food)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(chemicals, be used in food)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(chemicals, be used on food)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Salient(chemicals, be used in food)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(chemicals, be in food)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(chemicals, be added to food)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(chemicals, be added to food)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be added to food)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(chemicals, be used in food)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be used on food)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(chemicals, be used on food)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be used in food)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(chemicals, be added to food)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(chemicals, be bad for environment)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(chemicals, be bad for environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(chemicals, be bad for environment)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be bad for environment)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.32
Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(chemicals, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(chemicals, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(chemicals, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Salient(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(chemicals, be in food bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(software company, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(packaging, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(oil company, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(chemicals, be in food bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(oil company, be bad for environment)