email: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents page
Weight: 0.63
, letter
Weight: 0.62
, web site
Weight: 0.61
, gift
Weight: 0.61
Siblings junk mail
Weight: 0.65
, complaint
Weight: 0.60
, reminder
Weight: 0.57
, id
Weight: 0.56
, thunderbird
Weight: 0.53

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is quality 0.91
is ungiven good 0.87
be good 0.86
is great 0.81
has quality services 0.80
be good for business 0.80
is good thing 0.78
be bad 0.76

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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(gift, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(email, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(gift, is ungiven good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(email, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(email, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(gift, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(web site, is quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(gift, is ungiven good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(gift, is ungiven good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(gift, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(web site, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(complaint, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(complaint, be good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(complaint, be good for business)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(complaint, be good for business)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(reminder, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(thunderbird, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(thunderbird, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(complaint, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(gift, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(email, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(email, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(gift, is ungiven good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(email, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(complaint, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(complaint, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(thunderbird, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(thunderbird, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(reminder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(reminder, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(thunderbird, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(thunderbird, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(complaint, be good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(complaint, be good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(complaint, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(complaint, is good thing)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(complaint, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(complaint, be good for business)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(complaint, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(complaint, be good for business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(email, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(email, be bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(email, be bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(email, be bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(email, be bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(email, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gift, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(gift, is ungiven good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(complaint, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(complaint, is good thing)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(complaint, be good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(complaint, be good for business)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(complaint, be good for business)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(thunderbird, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(reminder, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(thunderbird, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gift, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(email, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(gift, is ungiven good)