exoskeleton: has quality disadvantage

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents structure
Weight: 0.51
, device
Weight: 0.47
, thing
Weight: 0.43
, technology
Weight: 0.41
, line
Weight: 0.36
Siblings robot
Weight: 0.31
, joystick
Weight: 0.31
, mucous membrane
Weight: 0.31
, cooling device
Weight: 0.31
, scaffold
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality disadvantage 1.00
has quality advantage 0.81

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

0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.53
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality disadvantage)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(technology, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(exoskeleton, has quality advantage)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(exoskeleton, has quality advantage)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(exoskeleton, has quality advantage)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(exoskeleton, has quality advantage)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(technology, has quality disadvantage)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(exoskeleton, has quality disadvantage) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(technology, has quality disadvantage)