projector: is quality

Related concepts

Parents	device Weight: 0.71 , item Weight: 0.63 , electronic device Weight: 0.60 , feature Weight: 0.58
Siblings	laptop computer Weight: 0.37 , movie projector Weight: 0.37 , computer keyboard Weight: 0.36 , digital camera Weight: 0.36 , tablet computer Weight: 0.36

Related properties

Property	Similarity
is quality	1.00
has quality good	0.91
do produce image quality	0.81
do produce same image quality	0.80

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.52

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(projector, is quality)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(projector, is quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.37

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)

0.28

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, do produce image quality)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Plausible(projector, is quality)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Plausible(projector, is quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

Remarkable(digital camera, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Plausible(digital camera, has quality good)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

Remarkable(digital camera, do produce image quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.04

¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce image quality)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

Remarkable(digital camera, do produce same image quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Plausible(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Salient(projector, is quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.85

Salient(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.75

Plausible(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(projector, is quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.19

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)

0.19

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce image quality)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Typical(digital camera, do produce same image quality)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Typical(digital camera, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.77

Typical(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.91

Evidence: 0.77

Typical(projector, is quality) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Typical(device, has quality good)