leak: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents accident
Weight: 0.65
, problem
Weight: 0.59
, trouble
Weight: 0.57
, thing
Weight: 0.57
Siblings toilet
Weight: 0.62
, radiator cap
Weight: 0.51
, spill
Weight: 0.36
, explosion
Weight: 0.36
, rupture
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(explosion, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(radiator cap, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(rupture, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(spill, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(spill, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(spill, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(rupture, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(rupture, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(explosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(explosion, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(radiator cap, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(radiator cap, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Salient(leak, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.51
Salient(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(leak, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(explosion, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(spill, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(rupture, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(leak, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(radiator cap, has quality bad)