nail polish: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents stain
Weight: 0.69
, thing
Weight: 0.66
, paint
Weight: 0.64
, hand
Weight: 0.61
Siblings glitter
Weight: 0.61
, nail
Weight: 0.37
, nail clipper
Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for environment 0.80
go bad 0.79
be bad for how 0.78

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: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(glitter, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(nail clipper, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Remarkable(glitter, be bad for environment)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(glitter, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(glitter, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.02
Remarkable(glitter, be bad for environment)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(glitter, be bad for environment)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(nail clipper, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(nail clipper, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Salient(nail polish, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(nail polish, go bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(nail polish, go bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Plausible(nail polish, be bad for environment)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.20
Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, go bad)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Salient(nail polish, be bad for environment)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.20
Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, be bad for environment)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Plausible(nail polish, be bad for how)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.20
Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, be bad for how)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Salient(nail polish, be bad for how)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(nail polish, go bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Typical(nail polish, be bad for environment)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(nail polish, be bad for how)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
Typical(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(nail polish, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.20
Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(nail polish, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(nail polish, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Salient(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.28
Plausible(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(nail polish, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Typical(glitter, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(nail clipper, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(nail polish, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(glitter, be bad for environment)