microwave: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents technology
Weight: 0.66
, household appliance
Weight: 0.65
, cooking utensil
Weight: 0.65
, device
Weight: 0.64
, radio wave
Weight: 0.63
Siblings washer
Weight: 0.56
, microwave oven
Weight: 0.40
, toaster oven
Weight: 0.38
, frying pan
Weight: 0.36
, refrigerator
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be good for transmitinginformation 0.81
be bad for environment 0.80
be bad for us 0.80

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.14
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(technology, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(technology, be bad for environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Remarkable(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(technology, be bad for environment)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(microwave oven, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(refrigerator, be bad for environment)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(technology, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.11
Plausible(technology, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(microwave oven, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(microwave oven, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(refrigerator, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(refrigerator, be bad for environment)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(microwave, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality good)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(microwave, has quality good)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(microwave, has quality good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(microwave, be good for transmitinginformation)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(microwave, be good for transmitinginformation)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(microwave, be good for transmitinginformation)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(microwave, be good for transmitinginformation)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(microwave, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(technology, be bad for environment)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(microwave oven, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(refrigerator, be bad for environment)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(cooking utensil, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(technology, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(microwave, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(technology, be bad for environment)