distributor cap: go bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cap
Weight: 0.66
, part
Weight: 0.55
, device
Weight: 0.53
, problem
Weight: 0.44
Siblings radiator cap
Weight: 0.35
, network device
Weight: 0.31
, electronic device
Weight: 0.31
, cooling device
Weight: 0.30
, record player
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
go bad 1.00
get worse 0.80
be terrible 0.80
is terrible 0.79
has quality bad 0.79
be bad for body 0.79
be come 0.78
come 0.78
is gone 0.78
be come from 0.78

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

0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cap, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(distributor cap, go bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(problem, come) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(distributor cap, go bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(part, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(distributor cap, go bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(part, be bad for body)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(problem, come)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cap, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(part, be bad for body)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(cap, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(problem, come)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radiator cap, go bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(network device, is gone)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(radiator cap, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cap, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(distributor cap, go bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(problem, come) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(distributor cap, go bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(part, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(distributor cap, go bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(radiator cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(radiator cap, go bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(network device, is gone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(network device, is gone)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(radiator cap, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(radiator cap, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Salient(distributor cap, go bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Plausible(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(distributor cap, go bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(problem, come)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(part, be bad for body)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cap, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(radiator cap, go bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(network device, is gone)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(radiator cap, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(problem, come)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(part, be bad for body)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(distributor cap, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cap, has quality bad)