miami: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents new york
Weight: 0.67
, hot spot
Weight: 0.60
, location
Weight: 0.60
, point
Weight: 0.59
Siblings new york city
Weight: 0.37
, washington
Weight: 0.37
, las vegas
Weight: 0.36
, philadelphia
Weight: 0.36
, cleveland
Weight: 0.36

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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(hot spot, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(miami, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(hot spot, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.57
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(hot spot, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(cleveland, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.00
Plausible(hot spot, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(miami, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(cleveland, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(cleveland, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(miami, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(miami, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Plausible(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(miami, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(hot spot, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(cleveland, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(miami, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Typical(hot spot, has quality bad)