delaware: was good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents state
Weight: 0.60
, place
Weight: 0.59
, maryland
Weight: 0.58
, city
Weight: 0.55
, law
Weight: 0.55
Siblings wilmington
Weight: 0.56
, wyoming
Weight: 0.35
, tennessee
Weight: 0.34
, arkansas
Weight: 0.34
, springfield
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
was good 1.00
has quality good 0.84
be good for business 0.81
was made 0.78
be good place live 0.76
be good for animals 0.76

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

0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(city, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(delaware, was good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(state, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(delaware, was good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(maryland, be good place live)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(delaware, was good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(state, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(city, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(maryland, be good place live)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.13
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(maryland, be good place live)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(city, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(state, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(tennessee, be good place live)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(arkansas, be good place live)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(city, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(delaware, was good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(state, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(delaware, was good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(maryland, be good place live)
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(delaware, was good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(arkansas, be good place live)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(arkansas, be good place live)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(tennessee, be good place live)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(tennessee, be good place live)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(delaware, was good)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(delaware, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(delaware, be good for business)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(delaware, was made)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(delaware, was made)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(delaware, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(delaware, be good for business)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(delaware, was made)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(delaware, be good for animals)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(delaware, be good place live)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(delaware, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(delaware, be good for animals)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(delaware, be good for business)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(delaware, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was made)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(delaware, be good place live)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(delaware, be good for business)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(delaware, be good for animals)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(delaware, be good place live)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(delaware, be good place live)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(delaware, be good for animals)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(delaware, was good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(maryland, be good place live)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(state, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(city, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(tennessee, be good place live)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(arkansas, be good place live)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(state, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(maryland, be good place live)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(delaware, was good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(city, has quality good)