cooking utensil: has quality bad

Related concepts

Parents	utensil Weight: 0.76 , frying pan Weight: 0.75 , item Weight: 0.68 , necessity Weight: 0.63 , thing Weight: 0.63
Siblings	wooden spoon Weight: 0.78 , toaster oven Weight: 0.76 , spoon Weight: 0.70 , wok Weight: 0.65 , coffee maker Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality bad	1.00
has quality use	0.86

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.61

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.84

Plausible(utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.65

Plausible(utensil, has quality use) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.28

Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Plausible(utensil, has quality use)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.28

Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Plausible(utensil, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.51

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Remarkable(utensil, has quality bad)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(utensil, has quality use)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.15

¬ Remarkable(wooden spoon, has quality bad)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.45

¬ Remarkable(spoon, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.84

Plausible(utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.28

¬ Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad)

0.33

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.65

Plausible(utensil, has quality use) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.28

¬ Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.28

Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.15

Remarkable(wooden spoon, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Plausible(wooden spoon, has quality bad)

0.46

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.28

Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.45

Remarkable(spoon, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Plausible(spoon, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.28

Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Salient(cooking utensil, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.54

Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality use)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.28

Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.47

¬ Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality use)

0.33

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Salient(cooking utensil, has quality use)

0.21

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.19

Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality use)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.29

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.28

Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.43

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Typical(utensil, has quality bad)

0.39

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Typical(utensil, has quality use)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(wooden spoon, has quality bad)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Typical(spoon, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.54

Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Typical(utensil, has quality use)

0.28

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.54

Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Typical(utensil, has quality bad)