network device: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents computer network
Weight: 0.84
, electronic device
Weight: 0.83
, device
Weight: 0.80
, hardware
Weight: 0.66
Siblings personal computer
Weight: 0.73
, modem
Weight: 0.70
, router
Weight: 0.69
, computer
Weight: 0.68
, firewall
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96

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

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(computer network, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(firewall, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(computer network, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(firewall, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(firewall, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(network device, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(network device, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Salient(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(firewall, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)