root canal: have bad reputation

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.64
, service
Weight: 0.60
, treatment
Weight: 0.60
Siblings molar
Weight: 0.40
, water main
Weight: 0.33
, drain
Weight: 0.33
, water sport
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
have bad reputation 1.00
have reputation 0.97
has quality bad 0.81
has quality good 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

0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(root canal, have bad reputation)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(drain, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(drain, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(drain, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(root canal, have bad reputation)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(root canal, have reputation)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(root canal, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(root canal, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(root canal, have reputation)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(root canal, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(root canal, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(root canal, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(root canal, have reputation)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(root canal, have reputation)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(root canal, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(root canal, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(root canal, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Salient(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(root canal, have bad reputation)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(drain, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Typical(root canal, have bad reputation)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)