solo: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents album
Weight: 0.53
, setting
Weight: 0.52
, duet
Weight: 0.51
, event
Weight: 0.51
Siblings guitar
Weight: 0.32
, recital
Weight: 0.30
, tour
Weight: 0.30
, concert
Weight: 0.30
, exhibition
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
do bad 0.82
has quality standard 0.81
sound bad 0.79
is standard terrible 0.78
has quality price 0.78
CAN good 0.78
is terrible 0.77

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

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(exhibition, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tour, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(guitar, has quality better)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(concert, sound bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(tour, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(tour, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(concert, sound bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(concert, sound bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(exhibition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(exhibition, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(guitar, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(guitar, has quality better)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Salient(solo, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Plausible(solo, do bad)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(solo, do bad)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(solo, do bad)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.00
¬ Plausible(solo, is standard terrible)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Salient(solo, is standard terrible)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Remarkable(solo, is standard terrible)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(solo, is terrible)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(solo, is terrible)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Salient(solo, is terrible)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(solo, do bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(solo, is standard terrible)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(solo, is terrible)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.30
Typical(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(solo, has quality standard)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality standard)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(solo, has quality standard)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(solo, has quality standard)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.06
Plausible(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(solo, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(tour, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(exhibition, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(guitar, has quality better)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(solo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Typical(concert, sound bad)