listening: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.60
, topic
Weight: 0.56
, time
Weight: 0.54
, experience
Weight: 0.54
, activity
Weight: 0.52
Siblings loud music
Weight: 0.34
, talking
Weight: 0.34
, living thing
Weight: 0.33
, communicating
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is high good 0.80
feel good 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

0.61
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(time, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(listening, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(experience, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(listening, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(experience, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(listening, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(experience, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(experience, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(time, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(experience, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(experience, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(time, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(talking, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(communicating, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(talking, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(loud music, feel good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(experience, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(listening, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(time, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(listening, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(experience, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(listening, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(talking, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(talking, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(communicating, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(communicating, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(talking, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(talking, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(loud music, feel good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Plausible(loud music, feel good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Salient(listening, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(listening, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(listening, is high good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(listening, feel good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(listening, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(listening, feel good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(listening, is high good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(listening, is high good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(listening, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.25
Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(listening, feel good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(listening, feel good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(listening, is high good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(listening, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(experience, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(experience, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(time, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(talking, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(talking, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(communicating, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(loud music, feel good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(experience, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(experience, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(listening, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(time, has quality good)