hot dog: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents animal fat
Weight: 0.72
, fast food
Weight: 0.70
, favorite
Weight: 0.68
, junk food
Weight: 0.67
, item
Weight: 0.67
Siblings dog food
Weight: 0.38
, pet food
Weight: 0.36
, chocolate bar
Weight: 0.34
, pizza
Weight: 0.34
, twinkies
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be considered bad 0.78
taste good 0.77
be bad for body 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

0.65
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(junk food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(junk food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fast food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(animal fat, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(fast food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(junk food, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(fast food, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(animal fat, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(fast food, be bad for body)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(junk food, be bad for body)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality good)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality bad)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(junk food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.58
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(animal fat, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(junk food, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(fast food, be bad for body)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(junk food, be bad for body)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(dog food, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(pizza, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(twinkies, taste good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(junk food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(animal fat, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(fast food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(junk food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fast food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(junk food, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(fast food, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(pizza, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(pizza, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(dog food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(dog food, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(dog food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(dog food, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(twinkies, taste good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(twinkies, taste good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.28
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(hot dog, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Salient(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(hot dog, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.51
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(animal fat, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for body)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(junk food, be bad for body)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(dog food, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(dog food, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(pizza, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(twinkies, taste good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for body)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(animal fat, has quality bad)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(junk food, be bad for body)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.16
Typical(hot dog, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(junk food, has quality good)