spray: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.65
, treatment
Weight: 0.64
, powder
Weight: 0.62
, chemical
Weight: 0.58
, technology
Weight: 0.55
Siblings hair spray
Weight: 0.78
, pepper spray
Weight: 0.71
, bleach
Weight: 0.34
, sulfuric acid
Weight: 0.34
, water vapor
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(spray, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(spray, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(spray, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(spray, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(spray, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(spray, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(spray, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(spray, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)