phone: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mobile phone
Weight: 0.79
, cell phone
Weight: 0.75
, electronic device
Weight: 0.65
, personal computer
Weight: 0.62
Siblings cellular phone
Weight: 0.81
, phone book
Weight: 0.70
, blackberry
Weight: 0.68
, headset
Weight: 0.58
, thunderbolt
Weight: 0.58

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
is quality bad 0.98
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is quality 0.87
has quality use 0.86
is audio quality bad 0.81
has quality evil 0.80
be bad for us 0.80
go bad 0.79

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

0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(mobile phone, be bad for us)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(cell phone, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, be bad for us)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, be bad for us)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(cell phone, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(blackberry, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(headset, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(blackberry, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(thunderbolt, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Plausible(cell phone, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cell phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(mobile phone, be bad for us)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(phone, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(thunderbolt, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(thunderbolt, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(headset, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(headset, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(blackberry, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(blackberry, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(blackberry, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(blackberry, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(phone, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(phone, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(phone, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(phone, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, be bad for us)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(thunderbolt, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(blackberry, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(headset, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(blackberry, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(cell phone, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.94
Typical(phone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, be bad for us)