electronic device: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents device
Weight: 0.74
, instrument
Weight: 0.70
, material
Weight: 0.69
, accessory
Weight: 0.66
Siblings network device
Weight: 0.83
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.80
, computer monitor
Weight: 0.79
, digital camera
Weight: 0.76
, computer keyboard
Weight: 0.76

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
is quality 0.91
be of quality 0.90
has quality use 0.88
be of high quality 0.86
has quality making 0.84
has quality cost 0.82
has shape solid 0.79

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: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(instrument, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(instrument, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(instrument, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(computer monitor, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(instrument, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
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)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(computer monitor, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(computer monitor, is quality)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
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: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(electronic device, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(instrument, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(computer monitor, is quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(instrument, has quality good)