chow: have bad reputation

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents dog
Weight: 0.64
, place
Weight: 0.41
, restaurant
Weight: 0.39
Siblings beagle
Weight: 0.35
, small dog
Weight: 0.34
, labrador retriever
Weight: 0.34
, cocker spaniel
Weight: 0.34
, police dog
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad reputation 1.00
have reputation 0.97
has quality good 0.77

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(beagle, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(beagle, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(beagle, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Salient(chow, have bad reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(chow, have reputation)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(chow, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(chow, have reputation)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.28
Salient(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(chow, have reputation)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(chow, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(chow, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(chow, have reputation)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.28
Salient(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(chow, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Salient(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(chow, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Plausible(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(chow, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(chow, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(beagle, has quality good)