method: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents approach
Weight: 0.72
, standard
Weight: 0.66
, option
Weight: 0.65
, tool
Weight: 0.61
Siblings algorithm
Weight: 0.69
, extraction
Weight: 0.67
, strategy
Weight: 0.67
, adhesive tape
Weight: 0.66
, spray
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
has quality worth 0.82
has quality cost 0.81
be bad after all 0.80
is good thing 0.75

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: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(standard, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(approach, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(standard, be bad after all)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(standard, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(approach, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(option, has quality better)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(standard, be bad after all)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(standard, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(option, has quality better)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(approach, has quality better)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(algorithm, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(spray, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(extraction, has quality better)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(algorithm, has quality worth)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(standard, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(approach, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.04
Plausible(standard, be bad after all)
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(strategy, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(spray, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(spray, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(algorithm, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(algorithm, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(extraction, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(extraction, has quality better)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(algorithm, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(algorithm, has quality worth)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(method, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(standard, be bad after all)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(approach, has quality better)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(standard, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(algorithm, has quality worth)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(algorithm, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(spray, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(extraction, has quality better)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(standard, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(approach, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(standard, be bad after all)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(method, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)