detroit: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents michigan
Weight: 0.65
, new york
Weight: 0.63
, democrat
Weight: 0.59
, team
Weight: 0.59
, name
Weight: 0.58
Siblings new york city
Weight: 0.37
, washington
Weight: 0.36
, cleveland
Weight: 0.36
, philadelphia
Weight: 0.36
, boston
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
is bad now 0.84
be in bad shape 0.80
be become bad 0.77
be in terrible shape 0.77

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(cleveland, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(boston, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(boston, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(boston, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(cleveland, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(cleveland, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(detroit, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(detroit, be in bad shape)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(detroit, be in bad shape)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(detroit, be in bad shape)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(detroit, be in bad shape)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(detroit, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(detroit, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(cleveland, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(detroit, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(boston, has quality bad)