hamburger: be bad for environment

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents meat
Weight: 0.72
, meal
Weight: 0.71
, food
Weight: 0.67
, fast food restaurant
Weight: 0.66
, sausage
Weight: 0.65
Siblings cheeseburger
Weight: 0.38
, sandwich
Weight: 0.37
, pizza
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
be bad for environment 1.00
be bad for health 0.80
has quality bad 0.80
has quality good 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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(sausage, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(sausage, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(meat, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(meal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
Plausible(meat, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(meal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(meat, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(meal, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(meal, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(sausage, has quality bad)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(sausage, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(food, has quality bad)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.57
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(meat, be bad for environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(meal, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(sausage, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(sausage, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meal, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(sandwich, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(pizza, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(sandwich, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(meat, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(sausage, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(sausage, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(meal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
Plausible(meat, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(meal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(sandwich, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(sandwich, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(pizza, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(pizza, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(sandwich, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(sandwich, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(cheeseburger, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(cheeseburger, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Salient(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(hamburger, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Salient(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Typical implies Plausible

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(meat, be bad for environment)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(meal, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(meat, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(meal, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(sandwich, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(cheeseburger, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sandwich, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(pizza, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cheeseburger, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(meat, be bad for environment)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(meal, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(meat, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(meal, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)