hamburger: has quality good

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
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
be bad for health 0.77
be bad for environment 0.77
have well done 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.66
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(sausage, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(sausage, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(meal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
Plausible(meat, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(meat, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(meal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.09
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(meal, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(meal, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(sausage, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(food, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(sausage, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(food, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(meat, be bad for environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(meal, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(meat, be bad for environment)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(sausage, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(sausage, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meal, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(sandwich, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(pizza, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(sandwich, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(sausage, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(sausage, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(meal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
Plausible(meat, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(meal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(meat, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(sandwich, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(sandwich, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(pizza, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(pizza, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(cheeseburger, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(sandwich, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(sandwich, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(cheeseburger, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(cheeseburger, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(hamburger, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Salient(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(hamburger, have well done)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(hamburger, have well done)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(hamburger, have well done)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, have well done)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(meal, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(meat, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(meal, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(meat, be bad for environment)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(sandwich, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(cheeseburger, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sandwich, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(pizza, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cheeseburger, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(meal, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(meal, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(meat, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(sausage, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(meat, be bad for environment)