ginger: have bad reputation

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents ingredient
Weight: 0.70
, herb
Weight: 0.70
, spice
Weight: 0.65
, flavor
Weight: 0.64
Siblings tomato sauce
Weight: 0.38
, coriander
Weight: 0.38
, lemon balm
Weight: 0.38
, garlic
Weight: 0.38
, capsicum
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad reputation 1.00
have reputation 0.97
has quality bad 0.81
has quality good 0.77
be bad for sibo 0.75

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

0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(spice, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(flavor, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(spice, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(spice, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(flavor, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(spice, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(spice, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(flavor, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(spice, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(garlic, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(garlic, be bad for sibo)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(capsicum, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(tomato sauce, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(garlic, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(spice, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(flavor, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(spice, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(garlic, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(garlic, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(capsicum, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(capsicum, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(garlic, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(garlic, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(garlic, be bad for sibo)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(garlic, be bad for sibo)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(tomato sauce, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(tomato sauce, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Salient(ginger, have bad reputation)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Salient(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(spice, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(flavor, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(spice, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(garlic, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(garlic, be bad for sibo)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(capsicum, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(garlic, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(tomato sauce, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(spice, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(flavor, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(ginger, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(spice, has quality good)