exposition: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents event
Weight: 0.64
, topic
Weight: 0.54
, service
Weight: 0.53
, project
Weight: 0.52
Siblings epistle
Weight: 0.54
, convention
Weight: 0.35
, national convention
Weight: 0.34
, exhibition
Weight: 0.34
, seminar
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
be bad in bulgaria 0.87
has quality worth 0.82
CAN good 0.78
be in bad weather 0.76
has quality questions 0.75
has quality definition 0.75
has quality jokes 0.75

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exposition, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.55
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(exhibition, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(convention, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(convention, has quality jokes)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality worth)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality definition)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(seminar, has quality questions)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality)
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(convention, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(convention, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(seminar, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(seminar, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(exhibition, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(exhibition, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(seminar, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality worth)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(seminar, has quality questions)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality questions)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(seminar, has quality definition)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(seminar, has quality definition)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(convention, has quality jokes)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(convention, has quality jokes)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Salient(exposition, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Salient(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(exposition, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(convention, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality worth)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality questions)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(exhibition, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(seminar, has quality definition)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(convention, has quality jokes)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(exposition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)