dog food: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents animal
Weight: 0.68
, item
Weight: 0.67
, thing
Weight: 0.65
Siblings dog
Weight: 0.42
, pet
Weight: 0.38
, prairie dog
Weight: 0.38

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is quality 0.87

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: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(prairie dog, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(pet, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(pet, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(pet, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(pet, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(prairie dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(prairie dog, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(pet, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(pet, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(dog food, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(dog food, has quality good)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(dog food, has quality good)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(dog food, has quality better)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(dog food, has quality good)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(dog food, has quality better)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(dog food, is quality)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(dog food, is quality)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(dog food, has quality better)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(dog food, is quality)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality better)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(dog food, is quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(dog food, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(pet, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(prairie dog, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(pet, has quality good)