packaging: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents industry
Weight: 0.63
, process
Weight: 0.60
, plastic
Weight: 0.58
, market
Weight: 0.58
, raw material
Weight: 0.58
Siblings plastic wrap
Weight: 0.67
, cardboard box
Weight: 0.66
, automobile industry
Weight: 0.34
, lamination
Weight: 0.34
, manufacturing
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
help poor 0.75

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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(packaging, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(market, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(packaging, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(market, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(plastic, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(market, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(plastic wrap, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(lamination, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(market, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(lamination, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(lamination, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(plastic wrap, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(plastic wrap, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(packaging, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(packaging, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(market, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(plastic, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(plastic wrap, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(lamination, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(market, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(packaging, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(plastic, has quality bad)