computer network: has quality questions

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents network
Weight: 0.83
, electronic device
Weight: 0.75
, computer
Weight: 0.71
Siblings computer virus
Weight: 0.79
, web site
Weight: 0.72
, cellular telephone
Weight: 0.70
, printer
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality questions 1.00
has quality question 0.92
is quality 0.76
has quality bad 0.75

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: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(printer, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(computer virus, has quality questions)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(computer virus, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(computer virus, has quality question)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(web site, is quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(computer virus, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(computer virus, has quality questions)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(computer virus, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(computer virus, has quality question)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(web site, is quality)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(computer virus, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(computer virus, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(printer, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(printer, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(computer network, has quality questions)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(computer network, has quality question)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality question)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality question)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality question)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(computer network, is quality)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(computer network, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(computer network, is quality)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(computer network, is quality)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(computer network, is quality)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Salient(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality questions)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(computer virus, has quality question)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(computer virus, has quality questions)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(printer, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(computer virus, has quality bad)