flash: has quality evil

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents tool
Weight: 0.61
, thing
Weight: 0.60
, light
Weight: 0.58
, hero
Weight: 0.57
Siblings red light
Weight: 0.34
, light bulb
Weight: 0.33
, blue light
Weight: 0.33
, black light
Weight: 0.33
, light switch
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality evil 1.00
turn evil 0.90
has quality bad 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(light bulb, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(blue light, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(light bulb, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(light bulb, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
Remarkable(blue light, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(blue light, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(flash, has quality evil)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(flash, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Salient(flash, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(flash, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(flash, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(flash, has quality evil)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(flash, has quality evil)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(light bulb, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(flash, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(blue light, has quality bad)