crate: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents store
Weight: 0.62
, thing
Weight: 0.58
, place
Weight: 0.57
, item
Weight: 0.54
, object
Weight: 0.54
Siblings home depot
Weight: 0.33
, cage
Weight: 0.33
, cardboard box
Weight: 0.33
, kennel
Weight: 0.33
, trash bag
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96

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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(trash bag, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(kennel, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(kennel, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(kennel, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(trash bag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(trash bag, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(crate, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(crate, has quality good)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(crate, has quality good)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(crate, has quality good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(crate, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(crate, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(crate, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(trash bag, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(crate, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(kennel, has quality bad)