cinderella: was bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents fairy tale
Weight: 0.71
, princess
Weight: 0.66
, story
Weight: 0.65
, tale
Weight: 0.65
, heroine
Weight: 0.62
Siblings santa claus
Weight: 0.33
, romance
Weight: 0.33
, snow queen
Weight: 0.32
, jonah
Weight: 0.32
, shrek
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
was bad 1.00
has quality bad 0.85
is mononoke good 0.84
was poor 0.83
is third bad 0.82
was cancelled 0.82
fall for bad boys 0.78
was nice 0.77
is poor 0.77
is scary 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

0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(princess, is mononoke good)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(cinderella, was bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(princess, fall for bad boys)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(cinderella, was bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(princess, is mononoke good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(princess, fall for bad boys)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(princess, is mononoke good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(princess, fall for bad boys)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(shrek, was cancelled)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(shrek, is third bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(shrek, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(romance, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(santa claus, was nice)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(princess, is mononoke good)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(princess, fall for bad boys)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(cinderella, was bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.06
Remarkable(shrek, was cancelled)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(shrek, was cancelled)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(romance, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(romance, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(shrek, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(shrek, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(santa claus, was nice)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(santa claus, was nice)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(shrek, is third bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(shrek, is third bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Salient(cinderella, was bad)

Similarity expansion

0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was poor)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(cinderella, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(cinderella, was poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.37
Salient(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(cinderella, was poor)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(cinderella, was poor)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(cinderella, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
Salient(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(cinderella, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Salient(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(cinderella, was bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(princess, is mononoke good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(princess, fall for bad boys)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(shrek, was cancelled)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(romance, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(shrek, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(shrek, is third bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(santa claus, was nice)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(princess, fall for bad boys)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.56
Typical(cinderella, was bad)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(princess, is mononoke good)