pepsi: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents brand
Weight: 0.66
, beverage
Weight: 0.65
, carbonated beverage
Weight: 0.64
, soft drink
Weight: 0.63
, product
Weight: 0.61
Siblings soda pop
Weight: 0.36
, soda
Weight: 0.35
, starbucks
Weight: 0.35
, toyota
Weight: 0.35
, cola
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
has quality good 0.94
be better than coca-cola 0.86
is best 0.76
be good company work for 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

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(soft drink, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(brand, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(pepsi, has quality better)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(brand, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(soft drink, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(brand, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(soda, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(toyota, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(cola, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(toyota, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(toyota, is best)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(soft drink, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(brand, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(toyota, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(toyota, has quality better)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(toyota, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(toyota, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(cola, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(cola, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(soda, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(soda, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(toyota, is best)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(toyota, is best)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(pepsi, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(pepsi, has quality good)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(pepsi, has quality good)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Salient(pepsi, be better than coca-cola)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(pepsi, has quality good)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(pepsi, be better than coca-cola)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(pepsi, be better than coca-cola)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, be better than coca-cola)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(pepsi, is best)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(pepsi, be good company work for)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(pepsi, is best)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(pepsi, be good company work for)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(pepsi, is best)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(pepsi, be good company work for)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, is best)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, be good company work for)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(pepsi, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(brand, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(soft drink, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(toyota, has quality better)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(toyota, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(toyota, is best)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cola, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(soda, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(brand, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(pepsi, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(soft drink, has quality good)