fresh food: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents food
Weight: 0.74
, topic
Weight: 0.61
, item
Weight: 0.60
, thing
Weight: 0.58
Siblings fresh fruit
Weight: 0.76
, egg
Weight: 0.66
, bread
Weight: 0.66
, fruit
Weight: 0.66
, vegetable
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
be better than food 0.82
be much better tasting than food 0.76

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

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(fresh fruit, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(fresh fruit, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(fresh fruit, has quality better)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(fresh food, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.36
Typical(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Typical(fresh food, be better than food)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fresh food, be better than food)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.36
Typical(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(fresh food, be much better tasting than food)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(fresh food, be better than food)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(fresh food, be better than food)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(fresh food, be much better tasting than food)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(fresh food, be much better tasting than food)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(fresh food, be much better tasting than food)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(fresh food, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(fresh food, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(fresh food, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(fresh fruit, has quality better)