induction: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.63
, process
Weight: 0.61
, honor
Weight: 0.58
, intervention
Weight: 0.53
, heating element
Weight: 0.53
Siblings hydrolysis
Weight: 0.32
, combustion
Weight: 0.31
, diffusion
Weight: 0.31
, recognition
Weight: 0.31
, award
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
has quality change 0.86
be bad for environment 0.80
go bad 0.79
be good for business 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

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(intervention, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(induction, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(induction, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(induction, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(heating element, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(induction, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(intervention, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(heating element, go bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(process, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(heating element, go bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(intervention, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(process, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(award, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(recognition, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(combustion, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(combustion, has quality change)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(award, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(recognition, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(combustion, be bad for environment)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(award, be good for business)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(induction, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(intervention, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(induction, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(induction, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(heating element, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(induction, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
Remarkable(award, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(award, has quality bad)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
Remarkable(recognition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(recognition, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(combustion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(combustion, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(recognition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(recognition, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(award, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(award, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(combustion, has quality change) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(combustion, has quality change)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(combustion, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(combustion, be bad for environment)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
Remarkable(award, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(award, be good for business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(induction, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(induction, has quality good)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(induction, has quality good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(induction, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(induction, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(heating element, go bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(intervention, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(award, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(recognition, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(combustion, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(combustion, has quality change)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(recognition, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(award, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(award, be good for business)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(combustion, be bad for environment)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(intervention, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(induction, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(heating element, go bad)