mcdonalds: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents fast food restaurant
Weight: 0.73
, fast food chain
Weight: 0.68
, food chain
Weight: 0.66
, chain
Weight: 0.65
, thing
Weight: 0.63
Siblings mcdonald
Weight: 0.37
, starbucks
Weight: 0.36
, taco bell
Weight: 0.35
, fast food
Weight: 0.35
, hey
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for environment 0.80

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

0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(chain, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(chain, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.55
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(fast food restaurant, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(chain, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(taco bell, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(taco bell, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(chain, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(fast food restaurant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(fast food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(taco bell, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(taco bell, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(taco bell, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(taco bell, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(fast food, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(mcdonalds, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(mcdonalds, be bad for environment)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, be bad for environment)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(mcdonalds, be bad for environment)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(mcdonalds, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, be bad for environment)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mcdonalds, 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: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(chain, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(taco bell, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(taco bell, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, be bad for environment)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(chain, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(mcdonalds, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(fast food restaurant, has quality good)