soft drink: have harm

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents carbonated beverage
Weight: 0.78
, alcoholic beverage
Weight: 0.76
, snack
Weight: 0.71
, liquid
Weight: 0.70
Siblings bottled water
Weight: 0.74
, coca cola
Weight: 0.74
, orange juice
Weight: 0.71
, diet coke
Weight: 0.71
, apple juice
Weight: 0.69

Related properties

Property Similarity
have harm 1.00
have full harm 0.93
is harmful 0.79

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(bottled water, is harmful)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(diet coke, is harmful)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(diet coke, is harmful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(diet coke, is harmful)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(bottled water, is harmful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(bottled water, is harmful)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Salient(soft drink, have harm)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, have full harm)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Salient(soft drink, have full harm)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(soft drink, have full harm)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(soft drink, have full harm)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, is harmful)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.45
Typical(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(soft drink, is harmful)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(soft drink, is harmful)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(soft drink, is harmful)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
Salient(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, have harm)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(soft drink, have harm)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(diet coke, is harmful)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(soft drink, have harm) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(bottled water, is harmful)