client: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents creditor
Weight: 0.63
, family member
Weight: 0.62
, enterprise
Weight: 0.61
, partner
Weight: 0.61
Siblings real estate agent
Weight: 0.67
, owner
Weight: 0.63
, drug dealer
Weight: 0.63
, samsung
Weight: 0.62
, rolling stone
Weight: 0.61

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality system 0.82
have bad reputation 0.81
is poor 0.78
is terrible 0.77
has quality function 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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(enterprise, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(client, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(enterprise, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(client, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(partner, has quality function) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(client, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(enterprise, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(enterprise, has quality system)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(partner, has quality function)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(enterprise, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(enterprise, has quality system)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(partner, has quality function)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(samsung, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(samsung, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(drug dealer, is poor)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(enterprise, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(client, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(enterprise, has quality system) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(client, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(partner, has quality function) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(client, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(samsung, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(samsung, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(samsung, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(samsung, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(real estate agent, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(real estate agent, have bad reputation)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(drug dealer, is poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(drug dealer, is poor)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(client, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(client, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(enterprise, has quality system)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(partner, has quality function)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(enterprise, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(samsung, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(real estate agent, have bad reputation)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(samsung, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(drug dealer, is poor)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(enterprise, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(enterprise, has quality system)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(client, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(partner, has quality function)