mobile phone: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cell phone
Weight: 0.86
, telephone system
Weight: 0.74
, digital camera
Weight: 0.73
Siblings smartphone
Weight: 0.70
, android
Weight: 0.63
, headset
Weight: 0.58
, pda
Weight: 0.57

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality use 0.88
be bad for us 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

0.63
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(android, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(headset, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(smartphone, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(pda, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(pda, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(smartphone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(smartphone, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(pda, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(pda, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(headset, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(headset, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(android, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(android, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(mobile phone, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Salient(mobile phone, be bad for us)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, be bad for us)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, be bad for us)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, be bad for us)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.99
Salient(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(pda, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(pda, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(android, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(headset, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(smartphone, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.98
Typical(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)