liverpool: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents club
Weight: 0.69
, port
Weight: 0.61
, city
Weight: 0.60
, place
Weight: 0.57
, team
Weight: 0.57
Siblings manchester
Weight: 0.36
, leeds
Weight: 0.36
, milan
Weight: 0.36
, portsmouth
Weight: 0.36
, melbourne
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
have bad reputation 0.81
is bad team 0.79
is poor 0.78

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(portsmouth, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(portsmouth, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(portsmouth, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(liverpool, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(liverpool, have bad reputation)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(liverpool, have bad reputation)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(liverpool, have bad reputation)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(liverpool, have bad reputation)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(liverpool, is bad team)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(liverpool, is bad team)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(liverpool, is bad team)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(liverpool, is bad team)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Salient(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(liverpool, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(liverpool, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(liverpool, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(portsmouth, has quality bad)