digital camera: has quality good

Related concepts

Parents	electronic device Weight: 0.76 , computer hardware Weight: 0.73 , photograph Weight: 0.73 , camera Weight: 0.62
Siblings	mobile phone Weight: 0.73 , computer Weight: 0.71 , floppy disk Weight: 0.64 , scanner Weight: 0.63 , video Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality good	1.00
do produce same image quality	0.78
do produce image quality	0.77

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.59

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.86

Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Plausible(camera, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(camera, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Remarkable(scanner, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40

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

Evidence: 0.86

Plausible(camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)

0.39

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

Remarkable(scanner, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Plausible(scanner, has quality good)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Salient(digital camera, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.83

Salient(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.07

¬ Salient(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.80

Typical(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.04

¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce image quality)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.83

Salient(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Salient(digital camera, do produce image quality)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.80

Typical(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce image quality)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.62

Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.62

Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce image quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

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

Evidence: 0.83

Salient(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.24

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)

0.22

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(scanner, has quality good)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.80

Typical(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)

0.40

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.80

Typical(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Typical(camera, has quality good)