sharing: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.58
, service
Weight: 0.57
, value
Weight: 0.57
, option
Weight: 0.57
Siblings internet service provider
Weight: 0.32
, service station
Weight: 0.31
, integration
Weight: 0.31
, cooperation
Weight: 0.31
, chat
Weight: 0.31

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 standard 0.81
is bad thing 0.79
be in bad weather 0.76
has quality organization 0.76
is good thing 0.75

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(sharing, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(sharing, 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: 0.73
¬ Typical(sharing, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(option, has quality better)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(option, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(cooperation, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(integration, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(chat, has quality standard)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(cooperation, has quality organization)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(integration, is good thing)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(cooperation, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(sharing, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(sharing, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(sharing, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(integration, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(integration, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(cooperation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(cooperation, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(integration, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(integration, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(chat, has quality standard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(chat, has quality standard)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
Remarkable(cooperation, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(cooperation, is good thing)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(integration, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(integration, is good thing)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(cooperation, has quality organization) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(cooperation, has quality organization)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(sharing, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(sharing, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(sharing, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(sharing, is bad thing)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(sharing, is bad thing)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(sharing, is bad thing)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(sharing, is bad thing)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(sharing, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Salient(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(sharing, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(cooperation, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(integration, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(cooperation, is good thing)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(integration, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(integration, is good thing)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(cooperation, has quality organization)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(chat, has quality standard)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(sharing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)