met: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.56
, tv show
Weight: 0.54
, work
Weight: 0.49
, team
Weight: 0.48
, amino acid
Weight: 0.48
Siblings meet
Weight: 0.32
, talking
Weight: 0.32
, talk show
Weight: 0.32
, living thing
Weight: 0.32
, speaking
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(talk show, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(speaking, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(talking, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
Remarkable(talk show, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(talk show, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(talking, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(talking, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(speaking, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(speaking, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Salient(met, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(met, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(met, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(talk show, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(speaking, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(met, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(talking, has quality bad)