soft: has quality spot

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents material
Weight: 0.51
, landing
Weight: 0.48
, term
Weight: 0.47
, brand
Weight: 0.46
, thing
Weight: 0.45
Siblings raw material
Weight: 0.32
, heavy metal
Weight: 0.31
, aluminum foil
Weight: 0.30
, adhesive tape
Weight: 0.30
, latex
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality spot 1.00
has quality bad 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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(aluminum foil, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(heavy metal, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(latex, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
Remarkable(latex, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(latex, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(heavy metal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(heavy metal, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(aluminum foil, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(aluminum foil, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(soft, has quality spot)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(soft, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Salient(soft, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(soft, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality spot)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(soft, has quality spot)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(heavy metal, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(latex, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(soft, has quality spot) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(aluminum foil, has quality bad)