fig: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents fruit
Weight: 0.67
, fruit tree
Weight: 0.64
, crop
Weight: 0.59
, plant
Weight: 0.57
Siblings apple tree
Weight: 0.37
, pear tree
Weight: 0.37
, peach tree
Weight: 0.37
, pear
Weight: 0.36
, grape
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
be good for us 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

0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(fruit, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(fig, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(fruit, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(fruit, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(pear, be good for us)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(fruit, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(fig, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(pear, be good for us) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(pear, be good for us)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(fig, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(fig, be good for us)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(fig, be good for us)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(fig, be good for us)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(fig, be good for us)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(fig, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(fig, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(fruit, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(pear, be good for us)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(fig, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(fruit, has quality good)