grant: was good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents agreement
Weight: 0.66
, benefit
Weight: 0.61
, fee
Weight: 0.61
, tool
Weight: 0.60
, part
Weight: 0.60
Siblings application
Weight: 0.33
, contract
Weight: 0.32
, reimbursement
Weight: 0.32
, stipulation
Weight: 0.32
, first aid kit
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
was good 1.00
has quality good 0.84
was good general 0.84
is great 0.83
has quality bad 0.81
is good idea 0.80
is thought 0.78
is fuhr thought 0.78
be bad for body 0.77
be terrible 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

0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(tool, is great) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, was good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, was good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(agreement, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, was good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(agreement, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, was good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(part, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, was good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(part, be bad for body)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(agreement, is good idea)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(agreement, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(tool, is great)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(part, be bad for body)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(tool, is great)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(agreement, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(agreement, is good idea)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(reimbursement, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(reimbursement, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(contract, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(grant, was good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.93
Plausible(tool, is great) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(grant, was good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(agreement, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(grant, was good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(agreement, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(grant, was good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(part, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(grant, was good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(contract, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(contract, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(reimbursement, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(reimbursement, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(reimbursement, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(reimbursement, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(grant, was good)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(grant, is thought)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(grant, is thought)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(grant, was good general)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(grant, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(grant, is thought)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(grant, is fuhr thought)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(grant, is fuhr thought)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(grant, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(grant, was good general)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good general)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(grant, was good general)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(grant, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(grant, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(grant, is fuhr thought)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, is fuhr thought)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(grant, is thought)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(grant, was good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(agreement, is good idea)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(part, be bad for body)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(agreement, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(tool, is great)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(contract, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(reimbursement, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(reimbursement, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(agreement, is good idea)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(part, be bad for body)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(agreement, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(grant, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(tool, is great)