ski: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents water sport
Weight: 0.62
, sport
Weight: 0.62
, event
Weight: 0.59
, product
Weight: 0.56
Siblings snowboard
Weight: 0.56
, skiing
Weight: 0.37
, cross country skiing
Weight: 0.37
, snowboarding
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
were improved 0.76
be better than wheels 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(snowboarding, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(snowboarding, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(snowboarding, has quality better)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(ski, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(ski, were improved)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(ski, be better than wheels)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(ski, be better than wheels)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(ski, be better than wheels)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(ski, were improved)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(ski, were improved)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(ski, were improved)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(ski, be better than wheels)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(ski, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(ski, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(ski, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(snowboarding, has quality better)