regulation: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents measure
Weight: 0.64
, protection
Weight: 0.63
, limit
Weight: 0.62
, prohibition
Weight: 0.62
Siblings mandate
Weight: 0.65
, period
Weight: 0.59
, interpretation
Weight: 0.59
, regulator
Weight: 0.57
, legislation
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
was bad 0.85
has quality worst 0.83
has quality system 0.82
was good 0.81
has quality evil 0.80
hurt bad 0.77
is terrible 0.77

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(prohibition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(protection, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(prohibition, was good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(prohibition, was bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(prohibition, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(prohibition, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(prohibition, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(protection, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(prohibition, was bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(prohibition, was good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(prohibition, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(prohibition, was good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(prohibition, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(prohibition, was bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(protection, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(mandate, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(interpretation, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(legislation, has quality evil)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(mandate, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(interpretation, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(legislation, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(regulator, has quality better)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(mandate, has quality system)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(prohibition, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(protection, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.35
Plausible(prohibition, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(prohibition, was bad)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(prohibition, was good)
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(legislation, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(legislation, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(interpretation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(interpretation, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(interpretation, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(interpretation, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(mandate, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(mandate, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(regulator, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(regulator, has quality better)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(mandate, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(mandate, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(mandate, has quality system)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(mandate, has quality system)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(legislation, has quality evil)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(legislation, has quality evil)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(regulation, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(regulation, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(regulation, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Salient(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(regulation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(prohibition, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(prohibition, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(protection, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(prohibition, was bad)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(prohibition, was good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(regulator, has quality better)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(mandate, has quality system)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(legislation, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(interpretation, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(interpretation, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(mandate, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(mandate, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(legislation, has quality evil)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(prohibition, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(prohibition, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(protection, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(prohibition, was bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(regulation, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(prohibition, was good)