disk drive: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents drive
Weight: 0.75
, disk
Weight: 0.72
, hardware
Weight: 0.70
, random access memory
Weight: 0.69
Siblings hard drive
Weight: 0.79
, flash memory
Weight: 0.71
, floppy disk
Weight: 0.41
, dvd
Weight: 0.34
, console
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
has quality good 0.94
has quality bad 0.90
be better 0.88
has quality full 0.83
be much better than pc 0.76
is well liked 0.75

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

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(drive, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(disk drive, has quality better)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(drive, has quality full)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(disk drive, has quality better)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(disk, has quality full)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(disk drive, has quality better)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(drive, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(disk, has quality full)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(drive, has quality full)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(drive, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(disk, has quality full)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(drive, has quality full)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(hard drive, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(hard drive, has quality full)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(flash memory, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(console, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(console, be better)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(console, be much better than pc)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(drive, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(drive, has quality full)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(disk, has quality full)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(hard drive, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(hard drive, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(flash memory, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(flash memory, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(console, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(console, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(console, be better)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(console, be better)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(hard drive, has quality full)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(hard drive, has quality full)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(console, be much better than pc)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(console, be much better than pc)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(disk drive, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(disk drive, has quality bad)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(disk drive, has quality bad)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(disk drive, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(disk drive, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(drive, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(disk, has quality full)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(drive, has quality full)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(hard drive, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(hard drive, has quality full)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(console, be better)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(console, be much better than pc)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(console, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(flash memory, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(drive, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(disk, has quality full)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.99
Typical(disk drive, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(drive, has quality full)