security system: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents electronic device
Weight: 0.73
, security
Weight: 0.72
, service
Weight: 0.68
, device
Weight: 0.66
, personal computer
Weight: 0.65
Siblings access
Weight: 0.61
, alarm
Weight: 0.60
, adt
Weight: 0.54
, social security number
Weight: 0.37
, network device
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is quality 0.87
be bad in bulgaria 0.87
has quality worth 0.82
be bad lately around pitch 0.79
is terrible 0.77
has quality question 0.76
be in bad weather 0.76

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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(security, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.13
Plausible(security, be bad lately around pitch) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(security, be bad lately around pitch)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(security, has quality question)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(security, be bad lately around pitch)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(security, has quality question)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(adt, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality better)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(network device, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(security, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.13
Plausible(security, be bad lately around pitch) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(network device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(adt, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(adt, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(network device, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(network device, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(access, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(access, has quality better)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(security system, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(security system, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Salient(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(security, has quality question)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(security, be bad lately around pitch)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(adt, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(network device, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(access, has quality better)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(network device, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(security, be bad lately around pitch)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(security, has quality question)