cutting: be bad thing

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.62
, action
Weight: 0.59
, process
Weight: 0.59
, work
Weight: 0.56
, act
Weight: 0.55
Siblings cut
Weight: 0.35
, trimming
Weight: 0.33
, scaling
Weight: 0.33
, shaving
Weight: 0.33
, trim
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be bad thing 1.00
is thing 0.93
feel good 0.81
be bad for environment 0.80
has quality bad 0.79

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

0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(cutting, be bad thing)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(act, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(cutting, be bad thing)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(act, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(act, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(shaving, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(trimming, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(cutting, be bad thing)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(act, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(cutting, be bad thing)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(shaving, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(shaving, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(trimming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(trimming, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(cutting, be bad thing)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(cutting, is thing)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(cutting, is thing)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(cutting, is thing)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(cutting, feel good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(cutting, be bad for environment)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(cutting, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad for environment)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(cutting, be bad for environment)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(cutting, be bad for environment)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(cutting, feel good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(cutting, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(cutting, feel good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(cutting, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(cutting, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(cutting, feel good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(cutting, is thing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(cutting, be bad thing)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(shaving, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(trimming, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(cutting, be bad thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)