spinner: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents lure
Weight: 0.60
, device
Weight: 0.56
, act
Weight: 0.55
, option
Weight: 0.52
, part
Weight: 0.52
Siblings popper
Weight: 0.31
, minnow
Weight: 0.31
, electronic device
Weight: 0.30
, circuit breaker
Weight: 0.30
, computer keyboard
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
go bad 0.79
is poor 0.78
is terrible 0.77
be bad for body 0.76
be terrible 0.76
feel good 0.76
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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(act, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(act, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(act, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(part, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(act, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(act, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(part, be bad for body)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(act, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(option, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(act, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(part, be bad for body)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(option, has quality better)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(act, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(act, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(circuit breaker, go bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(popper, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(circuit breaker, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(circuit breaker, has quality questions)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(popper, feel good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

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(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(spinner, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(act, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(spinner, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(act, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(spinner, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(spinner, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(act, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(spinner, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.08
Plausible(part, be bad for body) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(spinner, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(popper, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(popper, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(electronic device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(electronic device, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(circuit breaker, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(circuit breaker, has quality better)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(popper, feel good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(popper, feel good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(circuit breaker, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(circuit breaker, go bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(circuit breaker, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(circuit breaker, has quality questions)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(spinner, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(spinner, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(spinner, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Salient(spinner, is poor)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(spinner, is poor)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(spinner, is poor)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(spinner, is poor)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(spinner, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(act, has quality better)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(part, be bad for body)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(electronic device, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(popper, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(circuit breaker, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(circuit breaker, go bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(popper, feel good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(circuit breaker, has quality questions)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(act, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(act, has quality better)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(spinner, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(part, be bad for body)