plastic: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents polymer
Weight: 0.72
, type
Weight: 0.63
, material
Weight: 0.58
, item
Weight: 0.58
, electronic device
Weight: 0.57
Siblings plastic wrap
Weight: 0.76
, aluminum foil
Weight: 0.72
, acrylic
Weight: 0.66
, silicone
Weight: 0.66
, trash bag
Weight: 0.66

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be good 0.82

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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(plastic, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(silicone, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(acrylic, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(plastic wrap, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(aluminum foil, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(trash bag, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(acrylic, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(plastic, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(silicone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(silicone, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(trash bag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(trash bag, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(acrylic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(acrylic, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(plastic wrap, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(plastic wrap, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(aluminum foil, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(aluminum foil, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(acrylic, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(acrylic, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(plastic, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(plastic, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(plastic, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(plastic, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(plastic, be good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(plastic, be good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(plastic, be good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(plastic, be good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Salient(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(plastic, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(silicone, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(trash bag, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(acrylic, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, 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: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(aluminum foil, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(acrylic, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(plastic, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)