fast food restaurant: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents restaurant
Weight: 0.80
, junk food
Weight: 0.70
, food
Weight: 0.69
, place
Weight: 0.65
, location
Weight: 0.65
Siblings fast food
Weight: 0.85
, taco bell
Weight: 0.74
, pizza
Weight: 0.68
, hamburger
Weight: 0.66

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for environment 0.80

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

0.64
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(junk food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(junk food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality bad)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(food, has quality bad)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.53
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(taco bell, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(taco bell, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(pizza, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(junk food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(junk food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(fast food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(fast food, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(pizza, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(pizza, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(taco bell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(taco bell, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(taco bell, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(taco bell, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Salient(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(fast food restaurant, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(taco bell, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(taco bell, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(pizza, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)