distributor: has quality bad

Related concepts

Parents	company Weight: 0.62 , warehouse Weight: 0.61 , source Weight: 0.60 , third party Weight: 0.60 , market Weight: 0.59
Siblings	publisher Weight: 0.59 , baker Weight: 0.57 , software company Weight: 0.35 , supplier Weight: 0.35 , producer Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality bad	1.00
go bad	0.79
has quality price	0.78

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.50

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(source, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Typical(distributor, has quality bad)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(market, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Typical(distributor, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Plausible(market, has quality bad)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(source, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.44

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Remarkable(market, has quality bad)

0.40

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.50

¬ Remarkable(source, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Remarkable(software company, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(source, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(distributor, has quality bad)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(market, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(distributor, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

Remarkable(software company, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(software company, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Salient(distributor, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.78

Salient(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Salient(distributor, go bad)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Plausible(distributor, go bad)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.60

Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.28

¬ Remarkable(distributor, go bad)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.75

Typical(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Typical(distributor, go bad)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.75

Typical(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Typical(distributor, has quality price)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.78

Salient(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Salient(distributor, has quality price)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Plausible(distributor, has quality price)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.60

Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality price)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.78

Salient(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Typical(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Typical(distributor, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(source, has quality bad)

0.26

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(market, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Remarkable(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Typical(software company, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Typical(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(source, has quality bad)

0.39

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

Evidence: 0.75

Typical(distributor, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(market, has quality bad)