memphis: have bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents city
Weight: 0.63
, broadway
Weight: 0.60
, school
Weight: 0.58
, port
Weight: 0.58
, place
Weight: 0.57
Siblings mexico city
Weight: 0.36
, quebec city
Weight: 0.35
, lincoln
Weight: 0.35
, charleston
Weight: 0.35
, tennessee
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad 1.00
have all bad 0.93
has quality bad 0.88
is poor 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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(school, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(memphis, have bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(school, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(school, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(school, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(memphis, have bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Salient(memphis, have bad)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(memphis, have all bad)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.28
Salient(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Salient(memphis, have all bad)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.26
Remarkable(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(memphis, have all bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(memphis, have all bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(memphis, has quality bad)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Salient(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(memphis, have bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(memphis, have bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(school, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(memphis, have bad) ⋁
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(school, has quality bad)