fry: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents dish
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.54
, cooking
Weight: 0.48
, place
Weight: 0.48
Siblings fried egg
Weight: 0.35
, spaghetti sauce
Weight: 0.35
, eggs benedict
Weight: 0.34
, stew
Weight: 0.34
, steak
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
be bad for health 0.77

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(cooking, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(fry, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(dish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(fry, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(dish, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(cooking, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(dish, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(cooking, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(fried egg, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(stew, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(fried egg, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(steak, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(cooking, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fry, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
Plausible(dish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fry, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(steak, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(steak, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(fried egg, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(fried egg, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(fried egg, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fried egg, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(stew, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(stew, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(fry, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Salient(fry, has quality bad)
0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(fry, has quality bad)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(fry, has quality bad)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality bad)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Salient(fry, be bad for health)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(fry, be bad for health)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(fry, be bad for health)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(fry, be bad for health)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(fry, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(dish, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(cooking, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(fried egg, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(steak, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(stew, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(fried egg, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(cooking, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(fry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(dish, has quality bad)