pet: be fun but big respondsibility

from ConceptNet
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents animal
Weight: 0.67
, wild animal
Weight: 0.65
, friend
Weight: 0.64
, creature
Weight: 0.64
Siblings hamster
Weight: 0.74
, guinea pig
Weight: 0.71
, monkey
Weight: 0.70
, snake
Weight: 0.69
, dog
Weight: 0.69

Related properties

Property Similarity
be fun but big respondsibility 1.00
be fun 0.87

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

0.22
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(friend, be fun) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(pet, be fun but big respondsibility)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(friend, be fun)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(friend, be fun)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.24
Plausible(friend, be fun) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(pet, be fun but big respondsibility)

Salient implies Plausible

0.13
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(pet, be fun but big respondsibility)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(pet, be fun)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(pet, be fun)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(pet, be fun)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(pet, be fun)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
Salient(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(pet, be fun but big respondsibility)

Typical implies Plausible

0.10
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.03
Plausible(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(pet, be fun but big respondsibility)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(friend, be fun)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(pet, be fun but big respondsibility) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(friend, be fun)