sonar: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents device
Weight: 0.62
, equipment
Weight: 0.59
, method
Weight: 0.57
, tool
Weight: 0.56
, field
Weight: 0.55
Siblings smoke detector
Weight: 0.34
, galvanometer
Weight: 0.33
, ultrasound
Weight: 0.33
, electronic device
Weight: 0.33
, cooling device
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality help 0.86
has quality worth 0.82
go bad 0.79
is terrible 0.77
has quality questions 0.75

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

0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(field, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(field, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(field, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(smoke detector, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(smoke detector, go bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality questions)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(sonar, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(field, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(sonar, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(sonar, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(sonar, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(sonar, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(galvanometer, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(smoke detector, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(smoke detector, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(smoke detector, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(smoke detector, go bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(galvanometer, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(galvanometer, has quality questions)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(sonar, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality help)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(sonar, has quality help)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.69
Salient(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(sonar, has quality help)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality help)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Salient(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(sonar, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(field, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(smoke detector, go bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(smoke detector, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(galvanometer, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(galvanometer, has quality questions)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(field, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(sonar, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)