cleaning: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents job
Weight: 0.61
, activity
Weight: 0.59
, maintenance
Weight: 0.58
, duty
Weight: 0.58
, solution
Weight: 0.58
Siblings sweeping
Weight: 0.42
, laundry
Weight: 0.33
, plumbing
Weight: 0.33
, dishwasher
Weight: 0.33
, mowing
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for environment 0.80
feel good 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(plumbing, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(mowing, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(plumbing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(plumbing, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(dishwasher, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(mowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(mowing, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(dishwasher, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(cleaning, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(cleaning, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(cleaning, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Salient(cleaning, be bad for environment)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(cleaning, be bad for environment)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, be bad for environment)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(cleaning, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(cleaning, be bad for environment)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(cleaning, feel good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(cleaning, feel good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(cleaning, feel good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, feel good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(cleaning, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(plumbing, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(dishwasher, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(mowing, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(dishwasher, has quality good)