lunch: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents meal
Weight: 0.67
, dinner
Weight: 0.63
, free time
Weight: 0.61
, hour
Weight: 0.58
, program
Weight: 0.58
Siblings breakfast
Weight: 0.37
, brunch
Weight: 0.37
, supper
Weight: 0.36
, salad
Weight: 0.36
, hamburger
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is quality 0.87
has quality wrong 0.87
is good for 0.82
be bad for health 0.81
taste bad 0.80
be bad for environment 0.80
go bad 0.79
taste good 0.77

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

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(dinner, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(meal, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(dinner, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(meal, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(meal, is good for)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(meal, has quality wrong)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(meal, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(dinner, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(meal, has quality wrong)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(meal, is good for)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(program, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(meal, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(program, is quality)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(dinner, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.56
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(meal, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(dinner, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(program, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(meal, has quality wrong)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meal, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(dinner, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(meal, is good for)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(program, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(breakfast, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(supper, has quality wrong)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(salad, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(breakfast, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(supper, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(salad, taste bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(salad, taste good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(program, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(dinner, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(dinner, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(meal, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(meal, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.26
Plausible(meal, has quality wrong)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.46
Plausible(meal, is good for)
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.07
Remarkable(breakfast, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(breakfast, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(supper, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(supper, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(breakfast, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(breakfast, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(supper, has quality wrong)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(supper, has quality wrong)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(salad, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(salad, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.09
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for health)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(salad, taste bad)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(salad, taste bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(salad, taste good)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(salad, taste good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Salient(lunch, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(lunch, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(lunch, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.17
Plausible(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(lunch, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(meal, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(dinner, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(meal, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(dinner, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(meal, has quality wrong)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(meal, is good for)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(breakfast, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(supper, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(breakfast, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(salad, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(supper, has quality wrong)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for health)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(salad, taste bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(salad, taste good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(meal, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(dinner, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(meal, has quality wrong)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(meal, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(program, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(meal, is good for)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
Typical(lunch, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(dinner, has quality good)