complaint: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents letter
Weight: 0.65
, evidence
Weight: 0.64
, meeting
Weight: 0.60
, email
Weight: 0.60
Siblings sexual harassment
Weight: 0.70
, problem
Weight: 0.63
, diarrhea
Weight: 0.63
, headache
Weight: 0.62
, argument
Weight: 0.60

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
be good 0.86
be good for business 0.80
is good thing 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(complaint, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(evidence, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(complaint, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(meeting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(complaint, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(meeting, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(evidence, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(email, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(evidence, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(meeting, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(diarrhea, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(argument, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(argument, be good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(complaint, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(evidence, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(complaint, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(meeting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(complaint, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(diarrhea, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(diarrhea, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(argument, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(argument, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(argument, be good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(argument, be good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(complaint, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(complaint, is good thing)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Salient(complaint, be good for business)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Salient(complaint, be good for business)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(complaint, be good for business)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(complaint, be good for business)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(complaint, be good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Salient(complaint, be good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(complaint, be good for business)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(complaint, be good for business)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(complaint, is good thing)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(complaint, be good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(complaint, be good for business)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(complaint, be good for business)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(complaint, be good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(complaint, is good thing)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(complaint, is good thing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(complaint, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(meeting, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(evidence, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(email, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(diarrhea, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(argument, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(argument, be good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(meeting, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(evidence, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Typical(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(email, has quality good)