mcdonald: is bad company

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents food chain
Weight: 0.65
, restaurant
Weight: 0.62
, fast food restaurant
Weight: 0.62
, chain
Weight: 0.62
, fast food chain
Weight: 0.61
Siblings mcdonalds
Weight: 0.37
, italian restaurant
Weight: 0.36
, chinese restaurant
Weight: 0.35
, mexican restaurant
Weight: 0.35
, indian restaurant
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
is bad company 1.00
has state company 0.87
has quality bad 0.79
is business 0.77
is bad investments 0.76
be bad for environment 0.75
is bad job 0.75

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

0.23
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(mcdonald, is bad company)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(mcdonald, is bad company)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(chinese restaurant, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, be bad for environment)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(mcdonalds, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, be bad for environment)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(chinese restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(chinese restaurant, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(mcdonald, is bad company)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
Typical(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(mcdonald, has state company)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(mcdonald, has state company)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Salient(mcdonald, has state company)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, has state company)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Typical(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(mcdonald, is bad job)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad job)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(mcdonald, is bad job)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(mcdonald, is bad job)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Salient(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
Plausible(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(mcdonald, is bad company)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, be bad for environment)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(chinese restaurant, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.65
Typical(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.65
Typical(mcdonald, is bad company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)