food can: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents product
Weight: 0.66
, container
Weight: 0.60
, packaging
Weight: 0.58
, material
Weight: 0.58
Siblings pet food
Weight: 0.37
, frozen food
Weight: 0.36
, dairy product
Weight: 0.36
, kosher food
Weight: 0.35
, garbage can
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is quality 0.87
be of quality 0.86
has quality use 0.86
is high quality 0.83
has quality making 0.83
be of high quality 0.82
has quality cost 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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(food can, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(container, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(food can, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(container, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.55
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(container, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(kosher food, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(kosher food, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(kosher food, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(food can, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(container, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(food can, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(kosher food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(kosher food, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(kosher food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(kosher food, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(kosher food, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(kosher food, is quality)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Salient(food can, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Salient(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Plausible(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(food can, 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: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(container, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(packaging, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(kosher food, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(kosher food, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(kosher food, is quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(container, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(food can, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(packaging, has quality bad)