meat: has quality good

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
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
be good for teanages 0.85
be bad for environment 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

0.66
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fast food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(fast food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(fast food, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(food, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(food, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.54
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(fast food, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality bad)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(food, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(lunch meat, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(beef, be bad for environment)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(lunch meat, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(chicken, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Plausible(food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(fast food, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(fast food, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.01
Plausible(fast food, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(chicken, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(chicken, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(lunch meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(lunch meat, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(lunch meat, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(lunch meat, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
Remarkable(hamburger, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(beef, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(beef, be bad for environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
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: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(meat, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Salient(meat, has quality bad)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality bad)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(meat, has quality bad)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(meat, has quality bad)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Salient(meat, be good for teanages)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(meat, be good for teanages)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(meat, be good for teanages)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(meat, be good for teanages)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(meat, be bad for environment)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(meat, be bad for environment)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(meat, be bad for environment)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(meat, be bad for environment)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(meat, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for environment)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(lunch meat, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(beef, be bad for environment)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(hamburger, be bad for environment)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(lunch meat, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(hamburger, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(chicken, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(fast food, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(food, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(food, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(meat, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(fast food, be bad for environment)