meat: be good for humans

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents dairy product
Weight: 0.65
, frozen food
Weight: 0.65
, food
Weight: 0.65
, fast food
Weight: 0.63
, raw material
Weight: 0.63
Siblings lunch meat
Weight: 0.80
, hamburger
Weight: 0.72
, lamb
Weight: 0.71
, beef
Weight: 0.69
, chicken
Weight: 0.68

Related properties

Property Similarity
be good for humans 1.00
be with protein good for humans 0.88
be good for teanages 0.81
be healthy for people 0.79
be bad for dogs 0.78
be bad for environment 0.76
be from animals 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

0.19
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(dairy product, be bad for dogs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(meat, be good for humans)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(meat, be good for humans)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(dairy product, be bad for dogs)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(dairy product, be bad for dogs)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, be bad for environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(lamb, be bad for dogs)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(lunch meat, be bad for dogs)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(beef, be bad for environment)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.23
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(dairy product, be bad for dogs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(meat, be good for humans)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(meat, be good for humans)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(lamb, be bad for dogs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(lamb, be bad for dogs)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
Remarkable(lunch meat, be bad for dogs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(lunch meat, be bad for dogs)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(beef, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(beef, be bad for environment)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Salient(meat, be good for humans)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(meat, be with protein good for humans)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(meat, be with protein good for humans)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(meat, be with protein good for humans)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(meat, be with protein good for humans)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(meat, be good for teanages)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for teanages)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Salient(meat, be good for teanages)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(meat, be healthy for people)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(meat, be good for teanages)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(meat, be healthy for people)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(meat, be healthy for people)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(meat, be bad for environment)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(meat, be bad for environment)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(meat, be bad for environment)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(meat, be healthy for people)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(meat, be bad for environment)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
Salient(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(meat, be good for humans)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(dairy product, be bad for dogs)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for environment)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(lunch meat, be bad for dogs)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(lamb, be bad for dogs)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(beef, be bad for environment)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(dairy product, be bad for dogs)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(meat, be good for humans) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for environment)