shredder: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.57
, kitchen utensil
Weight: 0.52
, item
Weight: 0.50
, equipment
Weight: 0.49
, device
Weight: 0.47
Siblings time machine
Weight: 0.32
, blender
Weight: 0.32
, fax machine
Weight: 0.32
, garbage truck
Weight: 0.32
, garbage can
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality evil 0.78

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: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(shredder, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(blender, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(blender, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(fax machine, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(shredder, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(fax machine, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(fax machine, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(blender, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(blender, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(blender, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(blender, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(shredder, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(shredder, has quality bad)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(shredder, has quality bad)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(shredder, has quality bad)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(shredder, has quality evil)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(shredder, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(fax machine, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(blender, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(blender, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(shredder, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)